Public Bill Committee

[Sir Nicholas Winterton in the Chair]

Nicholas Winterton: I welcome Members to the afternoon sitting of the Policing and Crime Bill. I apologise for my hoarse voice, but at my young age I have succumbed to a cold, which has attacked my throat and I am therefore not quite at my usual volume.
When the Committee adjourned at 1 pm, the Minister was on his feet, dealing with an amendment to clause 16. I therefore ask him to conclude his speech, which I believe he will do quite briefly, after which I shall call the hon. Member for Hornchurch to respond.

Clause 16

Orders requiring attendance at meetings

Amendment proposed (this day): 23, in clause 16, page 15, line 6, after section, insert
by making an order under section 177 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 or.(James Brokenshire.)

Question again proposed, That the amendment be made.

Nicholas Winterton: I remind the Committee that with this we are discussing amendment 24, in clause 16, page 15, line 8, at end insert
(such order requiring attendance at meetings being referred to as a meeting requirement order for the purposes of this section).

Alan Campbell: May I begin our deliberations this afternoon, Sir Nicholas, by apologising for inadvertently misleading the Committee this morning? I implied or gave the impression that, following a possible situation where a woman fails to comply with an order to attend meetings, a prison sentence would be looming for her. That is not, in fact, a possibility. What would happen is that a supervisor would go back to court, report a breach of the order and the court could summons the woman, at which point she could be arrested if she did not comply. The outcome would be either resentencing on the original offence or another order. If I misled the Committee, I apologise sincerely.

David Ruffley: To be clear, from what the Minister just said, the sanction for breaching the order seemed to be another order. Is he excluding any fine of any description for breaching the original order?

Alan Campbell: No. If there was not a reasonable reason for the woman to have breached the order, perhaps by not turning up to the meeting, the supervisor would go to the court, which could summons the woman to appear. If she did not respond to that summons, she could be arrested. However, the purpose of getting her back into court would be to decide whether or not to return to the original offence and impose a fine, or to look at the original order, or to impose another order. I hope that that has clarified the situation.

Evan Harris: I share some guilt with the Minister over this business of imprisonment, which I fess up to now in the hope that I will not be arrested. Will the Minister clarify that if the woman did not respond to the summons and therefore had to be arrested, imprisonment would not be a potential outcome of the offence, as I believe it to be, of not responding to a court summons? I may be wrong, but that was the information that led me to believe that there was imprisonment.

Alan Campbell: Yes, it would be arrestable. If it was not possible for the woman to appear before a court then she could be locked up and put in a cell, awaiting that court appearance. There is a debate about how long that would bea point that we shall pick up laterbut that is not because of the subsequent offence that she has committed.
Returning to the amendment, I was responding to the alternative proposed by the hon. Member for Hornchurch. We were not satisfied that that would be an appropriate response, because of the severity that a community order would bring to the proceedings. We are confident that we have introduced a proportionate response to the situation, and therefore do not support the amendment. Amendment 24 provides that orders requiring attendance at meetings for loitering offences be referred to as meeting requirement orders. We are not convinced that an alternative name for the orders is needed, as the term used in the Bill is clear. For the reason that I gave in respect of amendment 23, we do not consider that the requirement to attend meetings should be imposed as part of a community order. The order is designed to deal specifically with prostitution and to be rehabilitative, rather than punitive. I would be happy to consider any strong argument to push amendment 24 further, but we do not consider it necessary. With that, I ask the hon. Gentleman to withdraw his amendment.

James Brokenshire: I appreciate the Ministers reply, and the way in which he has framed the structure in which the clause will operate. It was helpful of him to put on record the details of what would happen following an arrest for non-compliance with a meeting order. It seems that some confusion has arisen in the drafting. Given some of the points that hon. Members have raised in debate, it would be helpful if, on reflection, he considered further amendments to clarify the language on the operation of the measure in respect of a breach of a meeting requirement.
I return to the substantive point that I made when moving the amendments. In essence, we want to make it clear that the support services operate in a two-way fashion, such that there is compliance and intervention is meaningful. As I said, community orders follow assessment, reports and an examination of individual circumstances. For example, there might be follow-up, oversight and a mechanism to ensure compliance with a drug rehabilitation requirement. The orders need not involve only the person in receipt of the order; they could check and ensure that the relevant agencies and other bodies that are supposed to provide support and services do so.
I went to visit the Liverpool Community Justice Centre, and I was struck by the fact that the judge there takes a proactive approach in ensuring that the orders are followed through. Agencies and other bodies are supposed to step up to the plate to provide services, and he uses the orders to ensure that they are playing their part. My question about simply considering the meeting requirement is this: although it may have the ambition to provide the services, what is the follow-through at the end of the day? Will the Minister reflect on whether there should be a stronger reporting requirement on the person who provides the support to the offender in the meetings on the outcome of the meeting, and consider that kind of approach? That is relevant if agencies do not ensure that people, as proposed new paragraph 2B(b) states,
find ways to cease engaging in such conduct in the future,
because of addiction or various other things.
We will reflect on what is the most appropriate order, but in the light of the fact that the Minister said that he will reflect on the matter and consider further arguments and representations on why a separate approach may be better, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Nicholas Winterton: I understand that my co-Chairman indicated that he would not permit a clause stand part debate because the objective and purposes of the clause were fully discussed in the debate that we have had on the amendments.

Clause 16 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedule 1

Schedule to the Street Offences Act 1959

Evan Harris: I beg to move amendment 248, in schedule 1, page 107, line 22, after practicable, insert
and in any event within 24 hours.
The amendment seeks to probe how long someone can be detained under the schedule before being brought before a court. When the measure was originally introduced in the Criminal Justice and Immigration Bill, the relevant schedule provided that an individual in breach of a rehabilitation order could be detained for a maximum period of 72 hours before being brought before a court. That was controversial enough at the time. The Joint Committee on Human Rights said in its report on that Bill, at paragraph 1.55 of the fifth report of Session 2007-08:
However, we are concerned that these measures may in fact lead to the detention of women for up to 72 hours for failing to attend a meeting, and in fact may eventually lead to their imprisonment for failure to comply with the terms of court orders.
The Minister clarified the latter issuehe cannot envisage a situation in which merely not turning up to meetings or having to be arrested because of not responding to a summons would lead to imprisonmentbut it was a fact that the women could be detained for up to 72 hours under those provisions. As I understand it, in this Bill there is no such 72-hour limit. In fact, it says that an offender can be detained for an open-ended period of time before he or she must be brought before a court. The Bill simply states that he or she must be produced as soon as practicable.
The Minister will be aware that article 5 of the European convention on human rights is engaged in any indeterminate detention. We are not dealing with control orders or terrorists or anything like that, so it is necessary for the Government to explain why there is no time limit in the Bill. Why could the individual detained for breach of a rehabilitation order not be brought to a court within, say, 24 hours, as proposed in my amendment? That is what I am proposing. I am sure that the Minister will be able to answer that.
While I am on my feetI hope to avoid a schedule stand part debateI shall deal with one other issue and make two points on the approach in the schedule. First, on the definition of a reasonable excuse, at the moment the Government have provided that, if an individual
has failed without reasonable excuse
the Minister has used that wording himself
to comply with the order...The court...must revoke the order...and...may deal with the offender
in any way that the court would have been able to if he or she had been convicted of the original offence.
That much I understand, but there is a problem, because the consequences of the original order are rather uncertain for the individual subject to it. If someone does not turn up to the meeting, the question of whether they are brought back before a court depends essentially on whether their supervisor is of the opinion that they failed to comply with the rehabilitation order without reasonable excuse. There is no attempt to define what a reasonable excuse might be. Given that the sort of people who may be subject to the ordersas I think has been acknowledgedare likely to be vulnerable and leading chaotic lives, which may include drug dependency or severe economic deprivation, it is unreasonable not to provide a clearer definition of reasonable. Even if the Minister thinks it is reasonable, there is a question of legal certainty, in which people subject to criminal sanction are entitled to knowto have a clearer idea at leastwhat part of their behaviour is likely to lead them into trouble and a possible conviction. I would be grateful if the Minister could clarify that.
I want to make the point that I was in the middle of making when Mr. Bayley, who was in the Chair, said that it would be best made under schedule 1 stand part, rather than the clause that brought in the schedule. Although the Minister heard what I said about the impact of compulsory rehabilitation, I would be grateful if clarified the basis on which compelling rehabilitation is likely to be effective, especially in the absence of, or in contradistinction to, voluntary rehabilitation involving properly funded resources and people outside the criminal justice system seeking to engage with those vulnerable individuals.

Alan Campbell: Amendment 248 seeks to impose an absolute limit of 24 hours on the period that the police would be able to detain an offender following their arrest for a breach of the new rehabilitative order that we intend to introduce in clause 16. Detention in these circumstances may be necessary, as we discussed earlier, in order to ensure that an offender who has not only breached a court order but ignored a summons to appear at court can be brought before a court to be re-sentenced for the original offence of loitering or soliciting for the purposes of prostitution.
The hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon is correct. When the provisions for the order were introduced in the Criminal Justice and Immigration Bill, they allowed the police the power to detain an offender arrested for a breach of an order for up to 72 hours. The hon. Gentleman will recall, as I do, that that raised some concern among hon. Members. We have acknowledged that, and paragraph 9 will now oblige the police to bring the offender before a court as soon as practicable. We are confident that that will provide sufficient safeguards against undue detention without imposing an upper limit with which, in certain circumstances the police, through no fault of their own, would be unable to comply.
Let me give the hon. Gentleman and the Committee an example. If an arrest was made on a Saturday afternoon, the police might not be able to bring the offender before a court until Monday morning at the earliest. In such circumstances, 24 hours would not be a practicable time limit to set. I have stressed as often as I can in discussions on this matter that it will be a last resort for the police to detain offenders so that they can enforce the orders where they have been breached. We accept that there must be limits on the power to detain, but we consider that the requirement for the person to be brought before the court as soon as practicable is sufficient to prevent the police from detaining the offenders for unreasonably lengthy periods. In other words, it gives the police time to deal with circumstances such as when an arrest takes place at the beginning of a weekend but when the court might not be sitting until Monday. It covers those situations. By including the words as soon as practicable, the measure specifies an end limit in terms of hours. It has to be practicable and it has to be as soon as.
I understand the concerns expressed by the hon. Gentleman, but he must accept that if we are to introduce this order, it is necessary to strike a balance between the disproportionate use of power against those involved in street prostitution, and the need to ensure that the orders can be effectively enforced. We believe that we have struck the right balance, and that the provisions ensure that the power will be used appropriately.
The hon. Gentleman asked what would constitute an unreasonable excuse for failing to comply with a rehabilitation order. Reasonable excuse is an established term. It is used in existing legislation in relation to breaches of community orders, for example, so it is understood. Ultimately, it will be for the court to decide whether the offender has a reasonable excuse for failing to comply with the order. If an offender was unable to attend a meeting because of illness, for example, but they could provide evidence in the form of a doctors note, that would be considered a reasonable excuse.
I think the hon. Gentleman is perhaps seekingeither setting it out now or in the Billa whole series of scenarios or descriptions of what would constitute a reasonable excuse. The reality is that there will be as many excuses as there are people who breach the order, so we do not want to be too prescriptive. We want to give some discretion to both the supervisor and the court. We believe that, particularly in the case of the court, they would understand what was meant by reasonableness. We would not want to make a list of acceptable excuses, because some of the people receiving the orders will not have signed up to them themselves and will not need any encouragement to find ways to circumvent them. We do not want to be too prescriptive; we want to leave it to the discretion of the courts in particular.

Evan Harris: I understand the Ministers point and his reasons, and I am grateful to him for setting them out so clearly. The difficulty is that some people might not turn up to the meetings because they are in acute heroin withdrawal and need a fix. It is a key question whether that will be considered a reasonable excuse. If not, people will be penalised for drug addiction when the whole purpose of the rehabilitation is, I guess, to track them into treatment services. Although I accept and understand the Ministers reasons for not giving a list, I think that people out there want to understand in that clear, obvious example what the Governments intention is in establishing the statute. It is likely that those circumstances could arise several times.

Alan Campbell: The hon. Gentleman refers to a particular situation in which someone who is dependent on drugs might find it difficult to comply with an order, but as I explained earlier, the suitability of a supervisor for an order will depend very much on the needs of the woman in question. If she has a drug dependency that affects her life in the way that he described, it seems appropriate that she should be referred first and foremost to someone with expert knowledge about drugs who could help her end the habit. If so, I would expect them to have a good understanding of how drugs can get in the way of peoples lives. That might well constitute a reasonable excuse.
In the same circumstances, if having discussed the options and understood them, the woman decides to breach the order for some other reason, that would certainly mean that she ran the risk of falling foul of what is a reasonable excuse. It would depend on the circumstances, but we are not talking about someone who deals only with generalities; we are talking about seeking out experts and practitioners who can give the person the support that they need. That is the whole point of the order.
The hon. Gentleman also asked why we do not require the offenders consent. The reality is that for some offenders, a fine may be an easy option. We know what will happen, because it happens to now to some extent. The offender accepts the fine and finds when they are back out on the streets that the only way to pay the fine is to go back into prostitution. We are imposing an order and putting them on the path to rehabilitation, even though they might regard that as a more difficult option, bearing in mind that if they do not comply with the order, it is possible to return to the original penalty, which could be a fine. I do not think that the orders should be regarded as a soft option at all. We should not give offenders the opportunity to pick and choose. That is why we do not believe that the consent of the offender is necessary in all circumstances. With those remarks, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will feel able to withdraw his amendment.

Evan Harris: I have only one point to make in reply. Responding to the Ministers last point, if someone is determined just to be fined, they will breach their order. Obviously, some monitoring will be required to see whether any of that group of people successfully go through the provisions; if none does and they all end up being fined anyway, I accept that there is nothing that he can do under the architecture of the Bill, but we ought to consider whether it is a good use of everyones time. I hope that the Government will ensure that there are adequate post-legislative review procedures if the measure passes, so that the obvious problem of making rehabilitation compulsory, with no consent required, is dealt with.
In respect of the amendment, I understand the Ministers point, but regret that it was not in the explanatory notes. It is clear why he has done what he has done. That said, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Schedule 1 agreed to.

Clause 17 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 18

Soliciting: England and Wales

James Brokenshire: I beg to move amendment 25, in clause 18, page 17, line 12, at end insert
and the platform, concourse or any part of a railway station shall be considered to a be public place for the purposes of this section..
This is a testing amendment to enable us to understand clearly what the Government mean by public place. The clause creates an offence of soliciting a person for sexual services as a prostitute in a
vehicle in a street or public place.
From my discussions with the British Transport police and having been out on patrol with them on several occasions, I have learned that they have always sought to make a distinction whereby the area around a station is a private place, not a public place. Although the amendment may seen a little obtuse, highlighting as it does a station, the area around a station or a concourse, it was tabled to test the Governments thinking and to find out what they mean by a public place. Do they envisage that the phrase will cover such areas?
It is not inconceivable that in stations that are unmanned or perhaps unlit in the late evening, there might be the potential for soliciting to take place, but I want to understand clearly the Governments intention and whether they accept that a distinction can be drawn, with an area of a station being a private place not a public place, and the extent to which that phrase is intended to capture both types of area. That point has been made to me by the British Transport police, so I thought that it was appropriate to test the wording and find out the Governments intentions.

Evan Harris: I have nothing to say about the amendment but, to save time, I thought that I might ask my one question about the clause now. It will not be a surprise to the Minister to know that my concern about clamping down on soliciting in the way described arises from the fact that the act of soliciting will be likely to take place in more secluded areas further away from the police. In my view and the view of sex workers, those who represent them and the Safety First coalition, that will create more dangers than the status quo. Are the Government aware of the impact of pushing soliciting and loitering further into the shadows, given the problem with the small minority of potentially violent punters who would not object to that deepening darkness around the action of soliciting?
I accept that soliciting can be a nuisance in residential areas, but I am putting the other side of the argument. My other problem is that, wherever the action takes place and if soliciting is clamped down on, negotiations have to take place extremely quickly. The prostitute cannot hang around and engage in a lengthy discussion through a car window about how, what, where and who, but essentially has to jump in furtively. She will therefore be unable to take the protective measures and the risk assessmentstrange term though that may bethat she otherwise would. That is what prostitutes are telling me and, I suspect, other members of the Committee. It is not clear that the Government have recognised such problems, in the absence of proper consultation on this and other clauses.
In the measures on kerb crawling, the clause could have side effects that will endanger women. I do not for one moment fail to recognise that kerb crawling is a nuisance in public areas and that a balance must be struck, but I need reassurance from the Government that they have considered such matters. If there is evidence that street prostitutes will come to more harm as a result of the measure, I hope that the Government will review whether it is wise to bring in such a law rather than enable the police to see more clearly what is going on and prostitutes to have the protection of each other in a litnot darkarea.

Nicholas Winterton: I shall use my discretion, at the request of the hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon, because if we do not have to go through the process of a clause stand debate, we shall make up time, which will be helpful to the Committee.

Alan Campbell: Amendment 25 shows that the hon. Member for Hornchurch and I approach this subject from completely different directions. I wonder why he has tabled it, and he wonders why we have left out such a measure. I am now a little clearer about that, but we believe that the amendment is unnecessary because a court would consider any public area of a railway station to be a public place. I am intrigued by the information that he brought to the Committee from his experience of going out with the transport police, and I shall certainly consider it because, if what he says is the case, we would need to do something about it.
Anyone caught soliciting on a platform, concourse or other public area would be covered by the offence, but the other reason why we resist the amendment is that, if we put in the Bill that a railway station should be considered a public place, that might have the unintended effect of excluding railway stations from being considered public places under existing legislation. It is a complicated matter and not as simple as it might seem. Given my commitment to reconsider the matter, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will see fit to withdraw the amendment.
To respond to the remarks of the hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon, a secluded place would still be a public place. I understand his argument about the safety of women, and I stressed particularly in this mornings deliberations that the safety of women is the central reason for the proposals and that we certainly do not want unintended consequences. Unfortunately, however, men take women from the streets to secluded places now

Sitting suspended for a Division in the House.

On resuming

Nicholas Winterton: Fifteen minutes have passed, so we may resume our deliberations. The Minister was on his feet and about to conclude his remarks.

Alan Campbell: Thank you, Sir Nicholas. You preface my rising with a comment most times. I am beginning to get the hint.
I was responding to the contention of the hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon that the soliciting offence runs the risk of driving the practice to more secluded areas, if the police clamp down on kerb crawling. There is evidence that such measures can help to reduce street prostitution rather than merely displace it. Although there is not time for this debate, the logical conclusion of his remarks is that if we did not have a kerb crawling offence, the situation would be much better. However, we think that the offence is necessary to tackle demand for prostitution and to reduce street prostitution in particular. With those remarks, I hope that the hon. Member for Hornchurch will withdraw the amendment.

James Brokenshire: I am grateful for the Ministers comments. I hope that he now has a better understanding of the purpose behind the amendment. The point made to me by the BTP is that this is a complex question. Although one might think that station areas are public, they might not be in all circumstances. The Bill needs more scrutiny to ensure that it encapsulates what the Minister and I imagine it encapsulates. That depends on the language and wording and on the byelaws. An example given to me was that possession of a knife in a station might not trigger the offence of possessing a knife in a public place. Whether that is the case needs careful examination. On the basis of the Ministers assurance that he will look at this issue in more detail, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 18 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 19 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 20

Closure orders

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Nicholas Winterton: I call Mr. David Ruffley.

David Ruffley: May I say, Sir Nicholas, that although your voice might be slightly more hoarse than normal, it remains a very distinguished one here in Parliament and this Committee? I am sure that I speak for all Members on both sides of the Committee.
Clause 20 is important. It and schedule 2 insert a new provision in the Sexual Offences Act 2003 granting the courts the power to close temporarily
premises used for activities related to certain sexual offences.
A closure notice can be served by the police preventing anyone from entering or remaining on said premises, unless they regularly reside in or own the premises, until a magistrates court decides whether to make a closure order. If the court is satisfied that the relevant conditions have been met, it can make a closure order for up to three months. An application can be made to extend the closure order, but the total period for which an order has effect cannot exceed six months. That is the nub of the clause.
I know that all of usnot least you, Sir Nicholaswish to make progress, but I have one very simple question: has the Minister made any estimate of the number of establishments that could be the subject of a closure, and if so what evidence does he have to support it? Before he shakes his headhe might wonder how that can possibly be knownI should add that the point is worth exploring, because it goes to the heart of the interests of many of the vulnerable people, overwhelmingly women, who might be affected by the clause, no matter how well intentioned.
This question is one that we have heard beforeit is almost a leitmotif in our discussions of this part of the Bill. Will vulnerable women be driven underground? In other words, will they be moved from a place of relative safetyperhaps a brothel with some semblance of oversightout on to the streets and into places with no oversight of any description? In shorthand, will the abuse, degradation and coercion of such women, some of them trafficked, be shoved underground? That is the simple question that I pose to the Minister. There is no question that the clause is well intentioned. It is a tough measure that, on the face of it, will clamp down on criminality; that is the result that we all want. However, has much thought been given to the question whether such activity will be driven underground, resulting in some of these vulnerable women having an even harder time of it?

Nadine Dorries: I shall be brief, because I know that we are running out of time, but I want to pick up on the point just made. There is no such evidence, because we have not passed any legislation like this before that would inform us of what the consequences will be. One can only guess, assume and speak to those working in this field, not as prostitutes, but as outreach workers, social workers and nurses.
The big concern is that girls working as prostitutes will not stop working just because their brothel is closed down. That is the place where they are warm, where they work in relative safety and away from the view of residents and people on the streets, including children. They work there in seclusion almost; their business is kept indoors and behind closed doors. However, if their brothel is closed down, the girls will not stop working. They will go straight back out on the streets, but it will not just be the streets; it will also be wasteland, cars and secluded areas. I have heard it said that the girls will go underground. They will go on to waste ground. They will go on to the streets. The girls who were protected by being indoors and out of the public eye will suddenly be at risk of being prosecuted for loitering. Whereas before they were not criminalised, so that if they wanted to remove themselves from prostitution and go into another form of work, they could do so, now, as a result of being turfed out on to the streets, they will be more likely to have a criminal record around their neck. They will be more exposed and more liable to being prosecuted than they were before.
There are issues of safety. We all said after the events in Ipswich, This will never happen again; it must not happen again. I cannot see how anyone can say that when we are about to close down many brothels and put the girls into dangerous situations. They do not need prosecuting; they need help and assistance. If they want to leave prostitution, we need to provide a framework of assistance to get them out of that line of work. We do not need to put them in danger. Whatever the Minister says in his comeback, there is no evidence to show the results of this measure; we can only guess. However, the events in Ipswich, so fresh in our minds, show us that putting the girls out on the streets can only mean that they will be in danger.
A number of other points have been raised with me by the English Collective of Prostitutes, the Royal College of Nursing and the Safety First coalition. We heard someone say that the overwhelming body of evidence is against a particular argument. The RCNI will admit that I was a member of the RCN, so I listen to what it has to sayis hugely opposed to closure orders. At least when the girls are working in brothels, they are easier for the outreach workers to get to; they are easier to make contact with. Even simple things, such as telephoning them and making appointments to see them, are easier to do when the workers know where they are than when the girls are on the streets.
The only advantage to the measure that I imagine the Government perceive is that it will crack down on those who are controlling for gain and on trafficking. As I said, the aims are laudable, but it is like a using a big hammer to smash a very small nut. There will also be many girls back out on the streets who have not been trafficked and are not being controlled for gain. There will be girls out on the streets who are there because they want to do that work, not just those who were driven into it as a result of need or drug abuse.
The girls will be on the streets, but they are not there at the moment. In the present difficult economic circumstances, young girls who see the girls working on the streets may be tempted to follow that line of work, whereas beforewhen the girls were not so visibleit would not have come to their attention so much. This is almost a recruitment campaignturning the girls out on the streets, where other vulnerable young girls can see them working. Residents who do not want the girls on the streetswho would prefer them to be indoorswill have them on their streets. I cannot see one argument to back closure orders that does not put the girls in danger.
If I could wave a magic wand and stop prostitution tomorrow, I would. No woman should have to sell her body to make money to live, to keep her family or to do anything else. I abhor prostitution for those women who are forced into it and do not want to be in that line of work, but by the same token those women should not be exposed to danger. I cannot see any outcome of closure orders other than the girls being put in danger.
I heard the priest from Soho at the meeting involving the English Collective of Prostitutes the other night. These were his words:
It will not be long before I have to officiate at a funeral of one of these girls as a result of being turned out on to the streets, and when I do, I will point my finger at the Government and say, This was your fault.
Do we really want that to be the consequence of the closure order? That could really happen.

Lynda Waltho: I do not recognise the description that the hon. Lady is giving. She has almost made brothels sound like homely, inviting places to go. That may be the case in the brothels that she has visited in Soho or wherever, but in Walsall or Wolverhampton and the area that I represent, we are talking about seedy places that are sometimes just as dangerous as the streets. They are sometimes in dilapidated flats on council estates. The Julia Roberts Pretty Woman, happy hooker description is not what I find when I talk to prostitutes and sexual outreach workers in my region.

Nadine Dorries: There was a brothel in a council flat in the block opposite my bedroom window in the council maisonette in which I grew up. I know exactly what they are like. I have been to the flats in Soho, and I am not saying that they are homely, comfortable placesthat is not my point. They are not homely, and we would not want to live in them, but they are indoors, and the girls are off the streets. None of the girls in the brothels I visited was controlled for gain or trafficked.

Vernon Coaker: They would not be closing.

Nadine Dorries: Well, let us go back to the raid in December on the flats that I visited. The police went in and wanted to arrest the receptionist for controlled for gain. Where did the police get the words controlled for gain from? Was that a dummy or practice run before the Bill is enforced?

Lynda Waltho: The hon. Lady does not have a monopoly on council estate upbringingI was brought up on a council estate in Bermondsey, and I know exactly the type of area that she is talking about. Those places can be as dangerous as the streets. Women get attacked and are subject to all sorts of violent approaches. She was describing what sounded like a homely environment, but the flats I am talking about are not like thatthey can be just as dangerous as the streets. I hope she accepts that.

Nadine Dorries: The hon. Lady has made that point twice, but it is not the point I am making, which is this: no one wants to see girls attacked, but if one is attacked, all the women in a flat will be out on the streets. Six girls were working out of one flat that I saw. I am not saying that it was a homely environmentfrankly, it was seedybut the girls were at least safe. They were indoors and off the streets.
I simply think that there is another way to go to achieve what the Government want to achieve, other than via closure orders. The worst-case scenario of the closure orders is not good, and I am not sure that the Government want to go there. I wonder whether there is another way to deal with the problem that does not involve closing brothels down and putting the girls out on the streets. The residents do not want it, and a lot of the girls do not want it, so what are the Government trying to achieve? The worst-case scenario is not good, and I do not think that the Government want such an outcome.

Evan Harris: I am in something of a dilemma because some of the points that have been raised are the subject of amendments to schedule 2 that I have tabled, so I need to hold my fire until we discuss it. However, we are discussing a clause that introduces the schedule, so it is right for the Government to reflect on some of the cases in which closure orders will be used.
There is no argument, at least from me and my hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield, about the use of closure orders against establishments where child prostitution takes place or where child pornography is used, which is the bulk of the reason why the orders might be used, even if the bulk of the orders will be used for something else. We also do not have an argument against using the orders against establishments where there are trafficked women or women who are being brutalised, coerced or enslaved. There is no disagreement on that, although we wonder whether there are other offences for which someone might be locked up that we could use. The question is whether, in the remaining case scenarios, the use of an order will be dangerous for a womans health and safety.
The key question for the Minister to answer, either now or in response to a point that I will raise when we discuss the amendments to the schedule, is that of what the Governments attitude is to women who set up together in a profit-making organisation with a madam. That would be a consensual arrangement, even though someone would gain from it. The point has been raised before and the Minister said that he would reflect on itI understand if he cannot respond nowbut it must be dealt with.
It is important to listen to the Royal College of Nursing and NHS projects that need to keep in touch with women and can do that if the women are in an organised place. It is always wise to take the advice of the RCN, rather than picking and choosing, as I believe some have done, over when it represents the truth and when it does not. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Mid-Bedfordshire speaks from a sedentary position. I am not saying who that comment was directed at. However, I welcome the fact that the view of medical professionals is becoming increasingly respected in this matter, if not in others.

Alan Campbell: We must be aware of the risks that hon. Members are talking about, but it is worth reflecting on the kinds of establishment that would be closed under these orders. The hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds asked a specific question about how many establishments would be subject to the orders and how many orders would be made per year. The impact assessment, which we brought forward, gave a best estimate of between 780 and 1,200 orders. That appears to be high, but we suggest that it is the maximum possible impact; we do not think that that number of orders will be made.
The hon. Gentleman will understand why we brought such figures forward, and in my brief remarks I shall return to the point that such orders will be used in a targeted way in accordance with guidance.
Let me respond to a couple of issues that have been raised. We should be clear about the nature of the establishments that the orders are designed to tackle. The orders will be used only for prostitution and pornography offences that are particularly exploitative. That includes those involving children. The orders will give the police the opportunity to disrupt criminal activity and exploitation. We will work with the Association of Chief Police Officers to ensure that the guidance reflects that, that the orders are not used disproportionately and that we minimise disruption.
I take the point about people being caught up in these closure orders. It is important for victims and vulnerable people to be identified so that the police can, as they do, link up with local authorities and community projects and ensure that appropriate support is provided. We heard from the hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon about a scenario in which two or more women set up together, where there is no control for gain although there is a madam. In my earlier remarks, I made it clear that we do not believe that such a situation would fall foul of this legislation. Therefore, it would not be reasonable or proportionate to impose a closure order on such premises.
The hon. Member for Mid-Bedfordshire talked about women being better offthat was the phrase she usedworking in these brothels. I understand what she means, but I do not agree with her. This legislation should be used proportionately in those instances where women might have been trafficked and are subject to exploitation and control for gain, or where there is child pornography or prostitution involving children. There can be no excuse for keeping such premises open, and there cannot be any reason for not using the orders and disrupting the activity of those who would continue this hideous crime.
The hon. Lady also talked about the pointing of fingers: what would happen ifshe believes this to be a possible scenario under the legislationheaven forbid, a woman was pushed out on to the streets, became the subject of horrendous violence and was even murdered. It is possible for women who are exploited, or perhaps trafficked, in such brothels to be the victims of such violence on an ongoing, daily basisand even to be the victims of murder. Therefore, we are not talking about one solution being without risk and the other being entirely full of risk.
I simply refer to the purpose of the orders, which is to apply to a limited number of premises where some of the worst exploitation is taking place. We will do our utmost, working with the police, to ensure that the orders are targeted and that the guidance is in line with what we want to achieve under the Bill.

Nadine Dorries: Does that mean that the guidance will contain criteria that stipulate that a brothel will be closed down if it is premises where child pornography or prostitution, trafficking, control for gain and drug abuse are happening?

Alan Campbell: It will depend on the circumstances of the case, but the closure orders will be not only targeted, but used proportionately. In the circumstances where the offences that we are talking about are prevalent in that premises, I see no reason why the authorities would not use such ordersit is not defensible for them not to use them if their use would help to disrupt that form of criminality, although there must be a process of careful consideration whether to use such a closure order, because every circumstance will be different.
However, in the general circumstances that the hon. Lady is talking aboutthose things that might be happening in those premisesI see no reason why the orders would not be used, because the purpose of the orders is to try to disrupt that particular activity.
With those remarks, and fearing that I have not convinced everyone but nevertheless stating the intention of what we are trying to achieve, I urge that the clause stand part of the Bill.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 20 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedule 2

Closure orders

Evan Harris: I beg to move amendment 251, in schedule 2, page 110, leave out lines 4 to 7.
I do not have the skills of the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds, but will you, Sir Nicholas, take as read a compliment from me on your voice? We can then get on with it, because I think that we are all hearing you very well.

Nicholas Winterton: I am very grateful.

Evan Harris: I will whip through the amendment because we have already touched on it perforce. It is about the question of the extent to which the power will be used. The Minister said that it will not be used indiscriminately, and I am encouraged by that. I want to put it on the record that he said some important things, and indeed, the measure contains some important things regarding my concerns.
The amendment, which is probing, would remove the provisions whereby the closure orders apply to places where prostitution is believed to be, or is, controlled for gain, and would therefore restrict them to matters relating to child prostitution and pornography. The Minister said that there is guidance on how the closure orders will be used. That is important because he could not yet commit to guidance in respect of issues relating to clause 13, which also impact on what we are discussing.
Is it possible for us in the Commons to see a draft copy of the guidance, so that we know what we are voting for? That theme has come around many timesfor example, in the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008. It is hard to argue that draft guidance cannot be made available to us as it is years since the provision was first outlined. It is reasonable that we should be able to see what we are voting on. I hope that the Minister will consider enabling that, as a lot will depend on the guidance.
The Minister said that it is important that this power is not used indiscriminately. The point of my probing amendment is to press the Government again on three points that relate to that non-indiscriminate use. I agree with him that if it is not used indiscriminately and is used carefully, the power could be useful in tackling what it is directed against.
The first question is on the definition of controlling ... for gain in the 2003 Act. We have debated the place of madams over a couple of days. The Minister uses a form of words that does not wholly satisfy me, but he said that he would come back to us. It is clear that a madam may sometimes control for gain in the sense that she organises prostitutes and takes a profit from the exercise. However, the prostitutes are not coerced, intimidated or threatened by the madam and are willing to work under that procedure for their own safety and for a sense of fairness because everyone gets a share. It is not clear that madams will not become the issue. This point goes back to the definition in the 2003 Act and the question of Massey, which I will not rehearse. However, Massey is not and must not be the last word on the issue.
Secondly, the explanatory notes on the 2003 Act give an example of the sort of behaviour that might be caught by the offence of controlling prostitutes for gain under section 53. This relates to the 2003 Act and not to the restatement of the term controlled for gain in clause 13. The section in question is covered by one of the paragraphs that I wish to remove with the amendment. I am grateful to the UK Network of Sex Work Projects for raising the matter in its briefing. An example of behaviour that might be caught by the offence given in the explanatory memorandum is
where A requires or directs B to charge a certain price or to use a particular hotel for [their] sexual services [...] and B complies with this request or direction.
To me, that could be what a madam does. A madam might say, You go to this room and do this. Indeed, a madam takes a slice of the income as profit. The UK Network of Sex Work Projects points out:
This definition of control would apply to numerous responsible and non-exploitative relationships in many types of sex work.
There is a discrepancy between the explanatory notes, which give an indication of the Governments intention behind controlling ... for gain in the 2003 Act, and what the Minister has rightly said about the need to use the power with discrimination and in a way that will not catch the madam arrangement that women use for their safety. The point was made earlier that women should be encouraged to work in safe environments if they are in prostitutionit is not the Governments aim to end prostitution. It is important to note that if brothels close in this way, it may simply lead to such women being taken further from the public glare and to less safe locations, particularly if there is no prosecution to trap the traffickers or exploiters and the women remain in thrall to them. It may lead to prostitutes working in their own homes or the homes of clients, which are both less safe.
Thirdly, although the Minister claims that he hopes that use of this provision will not be indiscriminate, I understand that when there are complaints, police are likely to be directed to go to such places to invoke a closure order. There might be complaints from neighbours in middle-class areas. I recognise that that is a particular problem, not least in my own constituency. It relates to men going in and out. It does not relate, in my experience and that of the police I have spoken to, to reports of screaming from inside these establishments. I do not see how the Minister can be certain that the police are not simply going to respond to complaints that there is a brothel, as opposed to complaints that there is exploitation, force, coercion, and intimidation being used against these women.
The amendment clearly does not do the job I am seeking to do. I have made it clear that it is a probing amendment, but I would be grateful if the Minister addressed the points I have raised in respect of it.
Mr. Campbellrose[Interruption.]

Nicholas Winterton: The hon. Member for West Chelmsford is offering me medication.

Alan Campbell: I am a little concerned that the hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon appears to hear me say things that I am not sure I say. We had a point earlier about police priorities. I hope that I did not say that we have the guidance in place now for the use of closure orders. I think that what I said was that we are working, and we will work, with the police to ensure that they are proportionate and targeted and do the job that we want. I am not able to furnish him with even a draft copy of that guidance at this particular point.
In a way, the amendment takes us back to clause 13 because it revolves around control for gain. I come back to the central argument, which is that we believe that Controlling prostitution for gain, as set out in the 2003 Act, and then further set out through case law Massey, is clear. It is clear what the term means and, therefore, how this legislation can be applied. The definition is a dictionary onean ordinary meaning of controlled for gain. I can therefore only reiterate that, in our view, this does not include the sorts of scenarios that the hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon is setting out where, for example, a brothel is run by a maid or a madam. However, it would depend on the circumstances and what the maid or madam were doing. If they were simply making cups of tea, keeping the diary and helping to keep the women safe, no one could think that that was an ordinary meaning of the term controlled for gain. If, however, they were using physical force, they were exploiting a prostitutes drug habit, or they were threatening or coercing them, they would fall foul of the legislation.

Evan Harris: First, can I say that I was not accusing the Minister of having the guidance and not releasing it. I was making the point that there ought to be draft guidance by now and, given how long it will take for the Bill to go through the House, there may be an opportunity to bring that forward.
On the point that the Minister has just made, does he accept that there is a middle ground between making cups of tea and intimidating and using force against someone and that that is co-ordinating the activities of the prostitutes, with their agreement, and taking a slice of the profits?

Alan Campbell: I accept that there will be as many examples as there are cases which are being examined. There will be a variety of scenarios. In some instances it will be absolutely clear what controlled for gain means in these circumstances and therefore whether these orders can be applied; in other instances it will be clear that they cannot. However, given the legislative history of controlled for gain, the experience of the courts and of the police in these matters, they are quite capable of making a judgment about what is proportionate and what is targeted. These closure orders will not be used in the scenario that the hon. Gentleman is talking about. If there is a brothel on a middle-class residential street where trafficked women are being exploited, and where there is child pornography and other such horrors, I would expect these orders to be used. The hon. Gentleman suggests that they will be used almost on the polices whim, but that is not the intention, and I do not believe that it will be the case. I do not think, therefore, that the amendment is necessary.

Nadine Dorries: Will the guidelines contain provisions to prevent the police from using the Bill to close down any brothel that they wish? The Minister says that it will not be so used, but will provisions be put in place to guarantee that?

Alan Campbell: We will return to that point when we discuss the relevant schedule further. All I can say to the hon. Lady is that the police will need a reason to seek to use the orders, and evidence will be requiredthey will not be able to use them simply as they wish. Clear guidelines on when an order would be appropriate will be produced.
As I have tried to explain, amendment 251 returns us to the debate about controlled for gain. The hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon is not convinced that we got clause 13 right, and I imagine that he does not think that we have got the measure right here. However, removing the two offences before us, as the amendment would do, would be inappropriate. The proposed measure is important, so I ask him to withdraw his amendment.

Evan Harris: I shall withdraw the amendment in a moment. The Committee has been a success: the Minister has stated what will not be included in the definition of controlled for gainmaking cups of tea, reception work, maid services and so onand what will be covered, including the use of intimidation, violence or force, on which we can agree. However, he has not clarified his view on the key question of whether women working together in a brothel are liable to fall foul of the controlled for gain provision. On that question, Massey is not helpful, because it deals with a boyfriend and alleged pimp, and a drug-addicted prostitute, but not with the madam scenario. I still think that work remains to be done, as I hoped that he had acknowledged earlier.
If it is the Governments intention, which it must be, to prevent prostitutes from being abused in intimidatory and coercive places, while not banning all prostitution, it must also be their intention to promote, relatively speaking, the organisation and use of prostitutes in brothels in non-exploitative ways. The Government accept that there will always be prostitution, but rightly do not want it to happen in abusive circumstances, so there is a strong argument for licensing, or at least legalising, some brothels to ensure a legal, safe, non-exploitative option. Otherwise, there will always be the danger of serious side effects[Interruption.] The Minister shakes his head; he does not accept that point. However, having made it, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Evan Harris: I beg to move amendment 69, in schedule 2, page 111, line 24, leave out subsection (8).

Nicholas Winterton: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: amendment 249, in schedule 2, page 112, line 43, leave out two and insert three.
Amendment 70, in schedule 2, page 113, line 18, leave out subsection (10).
Amendment 250, in schedule 2, page 113, line 21, at end insert
(10A) The third condition is that the court is satisfied that the authorising officer has satisfied himself of the identity of the interested parties and effected service on them..

Evan Harris: These are probing amendments designed to work out whether the provisions are adequate, to attempt to avoid the need for a schedule stand part debate, and to give the Minister a chance, perhaps in a later group, to address some other questions that I would have raised under such a debate. We have spoken widely about this matter, but I would like to raise a couple more questionsif I can find the piece of paper with those questions on, which is always a struggle.
Amendment 69 would delete subsection (8) of proposed new section 136B of the Sexual Offences Act 2003, which states:
For the purposes of the second condition
which is that
the officer has reasonable grounds for believing that the making of a closure order under section 136D is necessary to prevent the premises being used for activities related to one or more specified prostitution or pornography offences
it
does not matter whether the officer believes that the offence or offences in question have been committed or that they will be committed (or will be committed unless a closure order is made).
It seems to me that the threshold is set extremely low. One could argue, as I do through the amendment, that the Government need to justify why they are not requiring a reasonable belief by the officer. If anything, on first reading, subsections (6) and (8) are contradictory. The officer must have
reasonable grounds for believing that the making of a closure order...is necessary to prevent the premises being used,
but it does not matter whether the officer believes that the offence or offences have been committed or will be committed. Is the inchoate nature of what is allowed by the inclusion of subsection (8) meaningful? Is it not over-broad?
Amendment 249, with amendments 70 and 250, would insert a new subsection (10)(a) into proposed new section 136D of the 2003 Act, introducing another condition for a closure order to be made. Instead of requiring that a magistrates court sees that two conditions are met, there would be three. The third, which is set out in amendment 250, would be that
the court is satisfied that the authorising officer has satisfied himself of the identity of the interested parties and effected service on them.
It is peculiar that there are effectively different provisions for making the closure notice, fulfilling the closure and making the closure order by the court. It is my intention in the amendments to probe the reasons why there is not a like-for-like match.
Amendment 70 would remove subsection (10) of proposed new section 136D, which states:
For the purposes of the second condition, it does not matter whether the court is satisfied that the offence or offences in question have been committed or that they will be committed...or will be committed.
Again, that is analogous to the earlier provision whose efficacy I questioned, asking whether it will make it difficult to understand what needs to be fulfilled. My other, related point about the schedule is that under the provisions, the court will not have to be satisfied of the third condition for the making of a closure order: that is, that the local authority has been consulted and the interested parties identified. That relates to my earlier amendment.
There remains a concern that the closure order would have a wider application effect because of the sort of person likely to be affected by it. That includes vulnerable people who might be on the verge of destitution or of being made homeless. There should be a good reason for the closure order to be made. It is disappointing that the Bill does not make it clear that closure orders should be made only as a last resort. Is it the Ministers understanding that the provision stating that the court must be satisfied that the issue of a closure order is necessary is meant to ensure that it is a last resort in respect of the fate of the women who will be involved?
Proposed new section 136O makes provisions for compensation. The new section suggests that someone could qualify to make an application for compensation for financial loss as long as they have taken reasonable steps to prevent the use of the premises for prostitution or pornographic activities. It would be useful, without necessarily setting out a list of reasonable steps, if the Government could specify that. It would be helpful and necessary in the interests of justice to have clarity as to what that would be.
Similarly, what would constitute a reasonable excuse under proposed new section 136G(3) for the purposes of a defence to the offence of remaining on or entering premises for which a closure order has been made? Again it would be useful if there could be some indication of what would be considered a reasonable excuse.
Finally, are there circumstances in which the 21-day time limit for an appeal against a closure order may be extended? For example, an individual with an interest in the premises might not discover the existence of the order until after the 21-day period had expired. The Minister may be aware that the same issues were raised, including by the Joint Committee on Human Rights, in respect of antisocial behaviour orders when they were first promoted, or with closure orders in respect of earlier legislation. It would be helpful if the Minister could clarify answers to those questions and address the points made by the amendments in my name.

Alan Campbell: Amendments 69 and 70, relating to a closure notice by a constable or a closure order by a court, respectively, would remove subsections (8) and (10) of the proposed new section 136B, which are to be inserted into the Sexual Offences Act 2003 by schedule 2 of the Bill. The subsections are intended to ensure that the premises can be closed when the offences have not yet been committed, as well as when the offences have been committed.
The hon. Gentleman talked about the process and the need to demonstrate reasonableness. The conditions for imposing a closure order or notice focus on the activities forming part of the offence taking place on the premises, rather than on whether all the elements of the offence have yet been committed. An officer may authorise the issue of a closure notice if they have reasonable grounds for believing the premises have been used for activities related to one or more specified prostitution or pornography-related offences. An order is necessary to prevent the premises being used for such activities in the futurea court must be satisfied of the same before issuing a closure order.
I understand that the hon. Gentleman is seeking clarification of the circumstances in which orders are being used, to convince him and others that it is a proportionate response and also that there are tests in place before such closure orders can be taken forward. For example, if a premises is being used for controlling prostitutes for gain, it is enough that the officer reasonably believes that the premises are where the sexual services are being provided. It is not necessary for the police to have reasonable grounds to believe that all the elements of the offence of controlling a prostitute for gain have yet been committed, so they will not have to believe or prove that the controllers have yet received a gain from their activities.
We believe that it is necessary to retain the subsections in order to clarify the meaning of the conditions governing the issuing of a closure notice or the making of a closure order. In particular, while recognising the need for safeguards, we also want to make sure that the police have necessary powers in those instances where there is agreement across the Committee that the powers should be usedwhere they have reasonable grounds for believing, but they are able to respond rapidly. It is an important element that the police can respond rapidly to circumstances in which they reasonably believe that there is cause to do so.
Amendments 249 and 250 would impose an extra condition that must be met before a court makes a closure order, in that the court has to be satisfied that the police officer responsible for authorising the issue of the closure notice, which must precede an application for a closure order, has satisfied himself of the identity of the interested parties and effected service of the closure notice on them. Under the new provisions, one condition that will have to be met before a police officer, who will not be below the rank of superintendent, can issue a closure notice, is that reasonable steps have been taken to establish the identity of any person who resides on the premises or who has control of, or responsibility for, or an interest in, the premises. The closure notice must then be served on the intended people.
The amendments would impose a condition on courts to ensure that the police have taken the necessary steps to identify people with a relevant interest in the premises, but we believe that it is clearly necessary for the police officer to meet such conditions if the notice is to be served properly. I understand what the hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon is saying, but I hope that we can assure him that the amendment is unnecessary to ensure that the police officer serves the closure notice properly by taking reasonable steps to identify those with a relevant interest in the premises. If the police have not done so, they will have failed to serve the notice properly; if they fail to take reasonable steps, the notice will not have been validly served.
The hon. Gentleman made a couple of other points. First, his point on last resort relates to one I made earlier. We hope that the orders are used proportionately and reasonably, but I hope that last resort is not necessary a long way down the track. The reality is that, however strong the measures, it may be necessary for the police to move quickly. At the same time, the police would nevertheless have to satisfy the court both of the need for the order and of its proportionality.
Secondly, the hon. Gentleman asked why 21 days is regarded as appropriate. I am advised that it is in common usage and that it is understood. Certainly, I would be happy to look at any proposals that he has on the matter, but we believe that 21 days is an appropriate period.

Evan Harris: I am grateful to the Minister because he addressed all the points raised in the discussion. On 21 days, my point was not that the period is too short. I was asking whether there were provisions to extend it in specific cases when someone is not aware that a closure order exists and therefore unable to put their case that they had a reasonable excuse to use the premises.
I am grateful that the Minister explained the purpose of the measures to which I drew attention in the amendments. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Evan Harris: I beg to move amendment 71, in schedule 2, page 120, leave out lines 13 to 20.
The amendment would omit proposed new section 136Q from the Sexual Offences Act 2003. The section, which is entitled, Issue of closure notices by persons other than police officers, states:
The Secretary of State may by order amend this Part so as to extend the power to authorise the issue of a closure notice to persons other than members of police forces,
and that an
order under subsection (1) may make...further amendments of this Part as the Secretary of State thinks appropriate in consequence of the extension of that power to persons other than members of police forces.
I do not have my note to hand so I would be grateful to know whether any order would be subject to the affirmative or negative resolution[Interruption.]I do not want to interrupt the important conversation between the Whips, although I understand that it has to take place, and that it is a chore to get up. Will the Minister clarify whether it will be an affirmative power?
Secondly, the closure of premises, which can include family homes, has serious implications for the right to respect for private and family life in the home. Is it not a serious matter if the Government envisage that that could be carried out by people other than trained police officers? The closure of a premises is traditionally a judicial function, and extending it beyond police officers is highly questionable. Given the nature of the legislation, the training required and the understanding that this is part of the criminal justice arm involving uniformed police, those powers should not be hired out to third parties under contract performance targets and the like. I do not know what the Government envisage, but if they have a clear proposal, I hope that it will come forward as primary legislation. For the reasons that I have given, Liberal Democrat members of the Committee are concerned about what the Government propose regarding the secondary legislation envisaged by the provision.

Alan Campbell: This is primarily intended to give the Secretary of State the power to allow local authorities to issue closure notices, as they can already do in relation to premises associated with persistent disorder or nuisance. We have no current intention to extend those powers beyond the police, but it may prove useful to review the situation once the provisions are in operation. We have listened carefully to the points raised by hon. Members. We want to ensure that the legislation works as we intend it to, and that will involve reviewing itthat is not unusual. We may then wish to make other proposals.
In his last point, the hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon said that extending these powers beyond police officers would be a questionable move. If we had proposals to extend the powers beyond police officers, they would have been in the Bill. We have no current intention to do that. If the Secretary of State decides to exercise the power that we are seeking, Parliament will have the opportunity to scrutinise the order that exercises those powers. I confirm that any such order will need to be laid and approved by affirmative resolution in each House. I hope that the hon. Gentleman finds that explanation helpful and feels able to withdraw his amendment.

Evan Harris: I am grateful to the Minister for his explanation. In fact, his explanation stated that no need for this clause is envisaged at the present time. I am opposed to taking those sorts of powers just because there might be different circumstances in the future, but there is little that I, together with my colleague on the Committee, can do about it as a minority of two. I know that the House of Lords feels strongly about the taking of such powers and will look closely at the justification and intention given by the Minister in respect of the provisions. If no reason to extend the powers can be envisagedand there is good reason why they should not be extendedwe should not be legislating on the basis of maybes.
Given the point that we have arrived at, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Schedule 2 agreed to.

Clause 21

Time limits

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Evan Harris: I am sorry, we have been making such good progress that we are going faster than I can read my writing. That is a doctors issue rather than anything else. I have a question about clause 21, which is designed to disapply the time limit in relation to orders made under the Sexual Offences Act 2003. An application for such an order is made to a magistrates court. Under section 127 of the Magistrates Courts Act 1980, a court is prevented from hearing a complaint unless the complaint was made
within six months from the time when...the matter of complaint arose.
The explanatory notes suggest that such orders do interfere with the right to respect for family life, but because the orders are preventive not punitive, and given the existing safeguards, those interferences are justified. However, the change to the current regime has the potential, as I understand it, to weaken the existing safeguards bythis is my readingpermitting applications for orders to be made in respect of events that have taken place more than six months previously. Potentially, that would allow an order to be made at any point after the initial conviction or caution, even if that conviction or caution was from many years ago.
The position is not entirely clear to me. I would be grateful if the Government confirmed whether what I have described is their intention and, if so, whether disapplication of section 127 is necessary. For example, is there any evidence of cases in which, because of section 127, the authorities have been unable to seek orders because of the six-month time limit? I hope that that is clear. I am asking for clarification only.

Alan Campbell: The UK has one of the most robust systems for managing sex offenders in the world and the Government are committed to strengthening that system further by ensuring that anyone who poses a threat to our society or children is dealt with as firmly as possible.
Part 2 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003 creates a number of civil orders. The aim of the orders is to protect the public or specific members of the public from sexual harm. The amendment clarifies the law in relation to applications for those civil orders. It confirms that the six-month time limit in section 127 of the Magistrates Courts Act 1980 does not apply in relation to such applications.
Let me give the hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon an example. When the police apply for a foreign travel order restricting an offenders travel abroad, they must show that the offenders behaviour since conviction makes it necessary to make the order for the purpose of protecting children generally or any child abroad from serious sexual attack by the offender. If section 127 applied, some of the evidence used to show that the offender posed a risk would have to come from the previous six months. That could pose problems in relation to certain sex offenders who are in custody or coming to the UK after being convicted abroad, as there may be little evidence of any concerning behaviour during the previous six months, although the police may still be concerned that their past behaviour indicates that they pose a high risk. Expressly disapplying the time limit will make it clear that the police can apply for such orders whether or not they have evidence of relevant behaviour in the last six months.
It is important that in appropriate cases we can restrict the activities of offenders who are released from prison or return to the United Kingdom following conviction abroad for sexual offences without having to wait for further evidence of risk to arise. We must take the initiative and be proactive to prevent harm. The change that we are proposing is supported by the Association of Chief Police Officers and the Child Exploitation and Online Protection Centre, to whose work I pay tribute.

Nicholas Winterton: Dr. Evan Harris.

Evan Harris: I was not aware that I had a right of reply in a clause stand part debate.

Nicholas Winterton: You are quite right. I was so used to you replying.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 21 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 22

Foreign travel orders: grounds

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

David Ruffley: I rise to pose just one question on the grounds for foreign travel orders. The clause amends any reference to children under the age of 16 in sections 115 and 116 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003 to under 18. The effect is to raise the age at which a child or young person has to be at risk in order for a foreign travel order to be made, and it alters the criteria determining which offenders qualify for a foreign travel order to include those who have committed sex offences against children under 18, rather than offences merely against children under 16, which is the existing law.
I have just one question, because foreign travel orders in principle are a good idea. The vile and disgusting offence of paedophilia is something on which the full force of the law must bear down in any and all possible ways, but I have a query on a point of information. The current powers, which the clause seeks to amend, relate to the age of the children, under 16, but on how many occasions have such foreign orders been made under the 2003 Act? I rise not to be critical of the clause, but merely to secure a better understanding of how rigorously the existing law, which is remarkably similar to the clause, has been enforced. If we had a number from the Minister, it would give us some perspective on how law enforcers are going about the vital business of cracking down on and discouraging paedophile offenders. My view is that the clause is necessary, but is the existing law, which it seeks to improve, being utilised to its full force?

Alan Campbell: I can answer the hon. Gentlemans point directly: foreign travel orders were granted between 2005-05 and 2007-08 in six cases. That may not appear to be a huge number, but those cases, in themselves and in the message that they send out, are nevertheless important. They must be seen in terms of orders in general. If we take sexual offences prevention orders and notification orders together with foreign travel orders, we are talking about 975 in 2005-06 and more than 1,500 in 2007-08. If the hon. Gentleman says that there is still a great deal of work to be done on the matter, I agree, but I also pay tribute to those who work tirelessly not just to bring these offenders to justice and to disrupt their activities, but to ensure that we have the legislation in place, because, as he knows, it is a vile business and some people find the most vile ways of going about that business. Almost as we change legislation, they look for ways to get around it, so I take his point, which he made very well, but the clause is an important step in the right direction, not least because it comes with the support of the police and the Child Exploitation and Online Protection Centre.
As the hon. Gentleman said, the provision ensures that the maximum age of a child who must be at risk in order for a foreign travel order to be made will rise from 16 to 18. It alters the criteria for determining which offenders can qualify for such an order to include those who have committed specified sexual offences against children under 18, not just under 16. It is supported by ACPO and the Child Exploitation and Online Protection Centre and will further strengthen our already robust system. It sends out a strong message that, no matter where people go in the world, we must protect children and enable them to enjoy their childhoods without fear of sexual violence.

Question put and agreed to

Clause 22 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 23 and 24 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 25

Regulation of lap dancing and other sex encounter venues etc

Lynda Waltho: I beg to move amendment 78, in clause 25, page 20, line 1, leave out paragraph (b).
May I say that your voice, Sir Nicholas, has taken on a completely different quality this afternoon, which I find quite interesting and stimulating? As I am sure most members of the Committee are aware, since the Licensing Act 2003 came into force lap-dancing clubs have been licensed in the same way as cafÃ(c)s, which has led to a proliferation of new clubs across the country. I first became aware of the issue not long after becoming an MP in 2005 when several residents complained to me that they had been unable to register their objections to a club setting up in Stourbridge only yards from their homes, which struck me as wrong. As a keen new MP, I obviously tried to intervene. I found that not only were the residents correct that they could not register their objections, but that the local authority felt that the club was following the law quite properly, even though it felt in its heart that the residents ought to be able to object. I spoke to many other MPs and found that the same issue was popping up all over the country.
There was a second application very soon after for another lap-dancing club in Stourbridge. It is a market town whose centre is enclosed by a ring road, and it still retains the feel of a market town, so to have yet another lap-dancing club, this time asking for permission to build 50 private booths, seemed rather overwhelming, and there was some debate as to what 50 private booths would bring for Stourbridge. I joined with the Fawcett Society and Object to bring the issue to the fore and we began to campaign. We got cross-party support because it is ridiculous that one can object to ones neighbour building a porch or a conservatory but not to a cafÃ(c) or bar next door becoming a lap-dancing club, and that was the basis on which the campaign started.
A 10,000-name petition was sent to Downing street, which gained the campaign much publicity, and many more people came on board. I am pleased that we have got to the point where the Government have listened to the people and decided to introduce clause 25, and I am particularly grateful to my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, who has taken a keen interest in the case. I believe that it is because of her interest that the issue has been highlighted even more. Local authorities will now be allowed to license lap-dancing clubs in the same way they license sex shops and cinemas, and they will be called sex encounter venues. That is really important, because local authorities such as Dudley can now take into account important factors such as the gender equality requirement, the character of a locality and whether the proposed club will be appropriate to the area, which is vital.

Evan Harris: I have been listening very carefully to the hon. Lady and do not disagree with what she says. However, I would be interested to hear how she envisages the gender equality provision being used. Is she saying that, by having a regard to the duty to promote gender equality, it will enable local authorities to deny an application for a lap-dancing club? If that is the case, would that not apply to all lap-dancing clubs in all local authorities? How would that be club-specific? Although it is an important duty on local authorities, it is a rather general duty.

Lynda Waltho: If we look at Stourbridge, for example, one of the clubs is directly opposite a sixth-form college. Young women walk backwards and forwards from the bus stop and the bus and train stations. At one of my surgeries, young women complained of being cat-called and harassed when they were leaving the college after evening events. That is a situation in which I envisage the duty being implemented.
It is at this point that I regrettably depart from the Government line, not because of the clause, but because it needs to be sharpened and tightened. We are in danger of creating another unintentional loophole that will allow lap dancing to continue without residents having the right to object. The provision has two clear flaws. First, licensing reforms should have universal application. Adoption of the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1982 is currently optional. Therefore, clause 25 will not guarantee all local communities a greater say in the licensing of lap-dancing clubs because the outcome will depend on whether the local authority chooses to adopt the legislation. We know that there is widespread demand for a greater say, so we have a big difficulty in this area. The voluntary nature of the 1982 Act and the sexual encounter venue category will create an uneven licensing landscape that is vulnerable to exploitation by the lap-dancing industry, which, from my experience, will jump straight through the loophole.
The greater flaw is in the provision that exempts premises that provide lap-dancing events less frequently than once a month. It excludes a large number of premises that hold lap-dancing nights. There is a very large and growing business for lap-dancing agencies that arrange nights and bookings in a range of pubs, bars, hotels and so on. During such difficult times, it is quite likely that this licensed business will see lap-dancing nights as a revenue raiser.
During my work on this issue, I have met many lap dancerscurrent and formerand also club owners. One local club owner in the Midlands has bragged to me that his business might not even be affected by clause 25 should this loophole remain open, and that it might even improve. Within the ring road of Stourbridge, close to the town centre, there are 11 pubs and bars and five licensed restaurants and places in which the agencies could apply for these special events. With my rough maths, there is the possibility, even if we can regulate or assist my residents in objecting to new clubs, of between 160 and 192 nights of lap dancing within the ring road. Each venue could apply for 10 to 12 temporary events a year. Should that be the case, the club owner states that he could move his stable of girlsI notice hon. Members making faces, but that was the phrase that he usedaround the town over a period of time, thus effectively creating a mobile lap-dancing club with all the same issues that apply to current clubs and premises without my local residentsor anybody elses local residentsbeing able to object. Local authorities cannot deny permission, which can be denied only if the police suspect severe public disorder should the event go ahead. That is the very big problem. We will still be denying our residents the right to object. Evidence from local authority officers suggest that many venues already exploit the loophole to hold monthly events. Once again, residents are denied the chance to object. Indeed, under the Bill they will have even less ground for an objection than under the Licensing Act 2003.
The exemption allowing venues to apply for temporary events notices, rather than as sex encounter venues, renders the clause almost worthless. It undermines the work of all those, including MPs, who have worked on and supported the campaign. Our work has been rendered useless. Residents are still to be denied their right to be heard. Thousands of men and women object, including councillors and those in the Fawcett Society, residents associations and, in one case, the National Organisation of Residents Associations, which represents more than 500,000 people. They are all aware of this loophole and are asking for it to be closed. The contradiction in the Bill must be resolved by removing paragraph (b), as proposed in my amendment. It would empower communities, such as that in Stourbridge town centre, as they deserve to be, and as I think this clause intended.

Roberta Blackman-Woods: I, too, wish to speak to amendment 78. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Stourbridge, I welcome clause 25, but I shall not open the champagne just yet, because considerable work remains to be done to improve it. As she said, we are seeking to delete the paragraph permitting lap dancing once a month in a club, pub or restaurant without going through what will be the new licensing procedure. That is really important. However, we need to go beyond removing the paragraph by inserting a proposed new section ensuring that temporary events notices cannot be applied to lap dancing.
I had already started to worry about the relationship between lap dancing and temporary events notices before I read clause 25. As the Minister will know, in Durham, the local authority approved a lap-dancing clubthis is why I got involved in the issueand residents had to go to enormous lengths to get it overturned in the magistrates court. We now risk judicial review in the High Court. Everybody wants local authorities to have the ability, under this legislation, to take into account residents opinions in a way that they do not under the 2003 Act. I and my residents were pretty hopeful that the legislation would help, so I was surprised to be contacted by some residents shortly after Christmas to say that the area, including the student union, had been leafleted with flyers saying that a lap-dancing night was taking place in the very pub that had lost its appeal for a lap-dancing licence. We could not understand why this had happened. When I contacted the police, they said, They have applied for a temporary events notice, and the only way we could turn it down was if there were substantial public order issues. We do not think that substantial public order issues will arise until the temporary events notice will have been granted.
The residents and I could not believe that, and so I looked into temporary events notices in more detail. I ask the Minister to talk to his colleagues in the Department for Culture, Media and Sport, because this is a pernicious policy instrument when used to allow lap dancing to go ahead. It allows no objection from local people at all.
I did a similar calculation to my hon. Friend the Member for Stourbridge. People may say, This would only be once a monthso what? But residents do not want lap dancing in their area, and that was the basis on which we asked for a change of legislation. It was to give residents more say. They should not have to put up with such events once a month.
In the immediate vicinity of the club that lost the appeal for a lap-dancing licence, there are about seven clubs that could apply for a temporary events notice. We could, therefore, have one or two lap-dancing events each week, and that does not seem to be the intention of the change in legislation. I know it will be a hollow victory if we end up with the clause continuing as it is. We already know that, because a Durham councillor has told me that the clubs are quite keen on the legislation the way it is currently framed. If one or two events happen once or twice a month, they are more likely to maximise the audience up to the 500 people allowed. They will therefore make more money than if they occur on a regular basis.
It really is important that, if the policy objective is to give local communities more say over what happens in their area and a greater ability to turn down lap-dancing clubs, the provision of sex encounter venues is not rendered redundant by the ability to get lap dancing via temporary events notices. I ask the Minister to take another look to see whether there is any way in which not only can the proposed new subsection (3)(b) be reduced, but that the terms cannot be used to allow for lap dancing or similar activities.

James Brokenshire: The amendments raise interesting issues about the intent, the application and what the actual focus behind the proposals is. I am sure that the Minister has listened carefully, as we have, to the way that the hon. Member for Stourbridge moved her amendment. I made a face because I was shocked at the comment made by the person who was running that particular establishment. To refer to women in such a derogatory and possessive fashion is unacceptable and outrageous, and that is why I appeared aghast at the comment that had been made.
That approach highlights the pernicious and appalling nature of some of the activities that go on. That is why neighbourhoods and communities need some means of redress to deal with the problems that people are having to put up with. That is recognised and understood.
I certainly listened carefully to the practical issues that were raised, which need careful consideration. The amendment may not precisely hit the nail on the head, and we may need to consider the issue further, but the hon. Lady raised the important issue of the regulation of sex encounter venues and the way in which that has been introduced. As she indicated, the issue has cross-party support and affects communities across the country, so we need a practical way of dealing with it. I will not repeat the phrase the hon. Lady used to describe the way in which somebody ran their business, but her point was well made and I will listen carefully to the Ministers response.
Dr. Harrisrose

Nicholas Winterton: The hon. Gentleman has prompted the hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon.

Evan Harris: I was not prompted by the hon. Gentleman. I hate to correct you, Sir Nicholas, because it is a risky thing to do, but it was good to hear what he had to say first for a change.
I pay tribute to the hon. Members for Stourbridge and for City of Durham, for running a concerted and effective campaign through early-day motions, appropriate lobbying and Westminster Hall debates to change the minds of many hon. Members, political parties and, indeed, the Government who, in March 2008, were not minded to support the campaign, but then realised that there was a case. It is therefore a tribute to those two members of the Committee, their colleagues and Object, the organisation that started the campaign and was later joined by the Fawcett Society.
I support amendment 78 in so far as it goes, because it allows for consistency. Our view is that the type of decision under discussion could and should be made locally and there should not be a loophole that prevents local authorities from exercising the clauses decision-making powers. Although it is not subject to the amendment, there is also a loophole in the case of temporary licences that was referred to by the hon. Member for City of Durham.
If a place is unsuitable for the reason given by the hon. Member for Stourbridge, namely that it is opposite a sixth-form college and it is essentially oppressive for young women to have catcalls from, for example, boys at the school[Interruption.]I will explain to the hon. Member for West Chelmsford who, understandably, did not understand the point that I was making. Part of the problem with lap dancing is that the objectification of women creates particular difficulties for young women growing up. If they see images of women in lower-shelf magazines, such as Zoo and Nuts,that portray them purely as sexual objects, it can be embarrassing and humiliating for schoolgirls when such magazines are brought into school. That is why they should be on the top shelf and classified as adult material, which is another of Objects campaigns.
Similarly, lap-dancing clubs are a form of adult entertainment and need to be separated from young people, because they can be an oppressive way of objectifying women that can give schoolgirls a particularly hard time. I have seen that happen, and it is inappropriate. The amendment therefore improves the clause.
I did not quite understand what the hon. Member for Hornchurch meant by the perniciousI do not know what the other adjective he used was, but it was a strong oneactivities that take place in lap-dancing clubs. If there are unacceptable activities, I hope that the Government have other ways of policing them. In a liberal society, however, we have to accept that, where there are good health and safety regulations and where sex encounter venues are kept apartin the way that the clause envisages local authorities having the ability to do sofrom areas of society that do not want them, adults will want to attend such venues, so we must allow their activities to take place. It is dangerous for any political party to argue against that, because some of their senior members sometimes go to such venues, or are dragged there, always against their will.

James Brokenshire: The hon. Gentleman will recognise that the emphasis I gave related to the perhaps quite extreme and shocking example given by the hon. Member for Stourbridge in relation to activity that she has had to deal with. I recognise that there are regulated activitiesindeed the clause envisages regulated activities for certain establishments. I was responding to that specific point.

Evan Harris: I am glad that I have given the hon. Gentleman the opportunity to make his point even more clear. If the hon. Member for Stourbridge presses the amendment to a vote, my colleague and I plan to support it for the reasons I have given.

Alan Campbell: I echo the comments of the hon. Member for Hornchurch about the inappropriateness of the comments to which the hon. Member for Stourbridge referred. I thank him for his cross-party support. As was said on Second Reading, all parties have aligned on this issue and are heading in the right direction. However, over and above the cross-party support, I place on the record the excellent work of my hon. Friends the Members for Stourbridge and for City of Durham. They have campaigned tirelessly on this matter and have made a difference. If they do not already know, I assure them that their constituents and constituents across the country will appreciate this measure if and when it becomes legislation. They are tireless fighters on this matter and for their constituencies.
I understand the concerns of my hon. Friend the Member for Stourbridge and her reasons for tabling the amendment, which would remove the provision that allows premises to provide relevant entertainment such as lap dancing less frequently than once a month without having to apply for a sex encounter venue licence. I wish to return to the other question raised briefly in her remarks on the voluntary nature of the 1982 Act because we will debate that more fully. She raised concerns about these provisions on Second Reading and suggested that they will allow establishments to run monthly lap-dancing events.
My hon. Friend the Member for City of Durham voiced similar fears and suggested that the apparent loopholes would cause agencies catering for monthly lap-dancing events to expand their businesses. I also acknowledge her concerns on temporary event notices. We discussed whether those notices can be applied to this sort of event when debating community empowerment. I share some of her concerns over temporary event notices and give her an undertaking that I will raise them with colleagues in the DCMS to see whether anything needs to be done.
In response to my hon. Friends the Members for Stourbridge and for City of Durham, I want to put on the record where we are on this issue. We do not envisage that the consequences they have anticipated will arise. However, I acknowledge their concerns and fears and those of other Committee members.

Lynda Waltho: The issue is not with foreseeing whether our concerns will arise. Such things are happening now. They are certainly happening to a greater extent in Durham. We know from experience that if people get away with something in one area, it will proliferate before we know it. There is quite a tight and connected community and dancers are shared.

Alan Campbell: I prefaced my remarks because I want to go back and address those issues. That is why I said that I was giving our current thinking on these proposals. I will return to the points that my hon. Friend is making.
I will set out not only where we are on this issue, but how we arrived at this position. That will give an understanding of the proposals before us. The focus of clause 25 is on businesses where lap dancing is a core part of the business, such as those referred to by my hon. Friends on Second Reading. Those include establishments that run lap-dancing events relatively frequently, such as once a month. We believe that those are the establishments that local people are most concerned about when they open in their locality. We have not left a loophole for these businesses and people to take advantage of. I shall return to that moment in a moment. The new licensing regime would apply to an establishment that runs monthly lap-dancing nights. Proposed new paragraph (b) means that only establishments that stage such events less frequently would not be required to obtain a sex encounter venue licence. If my hon. Friend the Member for Stourbridge is about to rise and say, Well it would not take a genius to work out how you could get around the monthly rule, I shall bear that in mind. I can assure her that I am not dismissing that point.
We believe that, as it stands, this is an appropriate place to draw the line and distinguish between those establishments which provide lap dancing as part of their core business, and those which may occasionally provide relevant entertainment, while operating primarily as another type of venue. An example might be a pub that hosts a stag night or a hen night, where a stripper is booked to perform. I understand, particularly in the light of the comments made by the hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon, that this entertainment can still be regarded as problematic. I know from experiences in my own constituency how it can inflame public opinion and that residents are alarmed, but we are trying to draw a distinction between the kind of formalised establishments for lap dancing that the legislation is primarily set out to do something about, and the sorts of examples that I am giving. However, I do not think it is legitimate to classify a pub hosting such entertainment on a sporadic basis as a sex encounter venue. That would not be a fair description. We accept that communities should have the right to voice their concerns about establishments that conduct lap dancing on a regular basisthat is the aim of the policybut at the same time we recognise the need to ensure that these provisions are not over-burdensome for businesses.
We believe that the exemption we have made is sufficiently restrictive to prevent lap-dancing nights being run by an establishment not licensed as a sex encounter venue, with any regularity. It would certainly ensure that the monthly lap-dancing nights, which my hon. Friends are concerned about, would be covered by the new licensing regime.

Roberta Blackman-Woods: Nevertheless, the Minister is saying that, if there were 10 days in a year in a specific club, perhaps 10 a year in the club next door, and 10 in the club across the road, that would be okay and that residents would not be particularly worried. If that is the case, that is not my experience: once residents have decided that they do not want a lap-dancing club in the area, they do not want lap dancing every other week in some venue in close proximity to the area that they are talking about either.

Alan Campbell: I can reassure my hon. Friend that I am certainly not saying that. The scenario that she paints is attempting to use the very loophole that we do not intend to create in the legislation. That is not its purpose; the legislation is there to deal with a lap-dancing club that people would recognise as sucha core business which is set up for those purposes and where activities are carried out on a regular basis. Whatever my hon. Friends views of establishments that might have the occasional exotic dancer or stripogram, we are trying to draw a distinction between pubs and clubs that we believe should not fall under this particular legislation. Whether we need to strengthen the legislation, either by this particular measure or by temporary event notices, is an interesting question.
Having set out the Governments position, I am particularly concerned with the agency approach that my hon. Friend the Member for Stourbridge has raised. I remain to be convinced that sufficient pubs in an area would be drawn into such an arrangement, however she has furnished important evidence of what is either happening or is threatened to happen in her particular area and it means that we have to pay attention to that. I accept the premise she is putting forward and I undertake to go away and look at that. The purpose of the Bill is to empower communities, and if there was a loophole that prevented communities from having their say and being empowered, not only should we seek to close the loophole, but we should not create it in the first place. I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Stourbridge takes my remarks in the spirit in which they are offered. I will go away and look at the issue, and come backno doubtafter further conversation with her and my hon. Friend the Member for City of Durham. On that basis, I hope that she will withdraw her amendment.

Lynda Waltho: First of all, I thank the Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats for their supportwe have received cross-party support throughout, stuttering now and again, but generally it has been great. I am grateful for the clarification of the position on facial expressions. However, that indicates that hon. Members and Ministers sometimes do not appreciate what it is like on the streets or in the clubs. People who are involved in the industry are out to make a fast buck. They make money out of the women who dancewe know the following argumentsthe women have to pay for their pitch, do not take all the money that they collect and pay for their costumes. Generally, the women whom I have met in clubs that I have visited have not worked for employers who were particularly interested in the welfare of their dancers. When the employers perceive a loophole, they will jump straight through it. In fact, the club owner whom I spoke toI would have called him a gentleman, but perhaps that is not the right descriptionsaw it as an opportunity to expand his business, because if the lap-dancing club became too expensive, he would move to the agency, his girls would move over and he would be able to function as well, if not better, because he would have fewer overheadsthat is the reality on the streets.
Notwithstanding that, I accept what the Minister is saying. He looked almost alarmed when my hon. Friend the Member for City of Durham and I were ready to jump up. I think that he is aware, after having been virtually chased around Westminster since he was appointedin the nicest possible way, in a professional capacitythat he needed to get the Bill right. It has been a long, hard road, and it will be so sad and empty if we do not close the loophole, because people will jump through it, please believe me.
However, I am willing to put my faith in the Minister, and I hope that he will come back to us with something that is much tighter than what we have at the moment. I would also like to push the issue of temporary licences with the Department for Culture, Media and Sport, and I hope that he is able to do that. I reserve the right to come back at some future opportunity, but at the moment, I am prepared to put my faith in him, and I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Roberta Blackman-Woods: I beg to move amendment 62, in clause 25, page 22, line 4, at end insert
(8A) In section 2 of the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1982, for subsections (1) to (4) substitute
(1) Schedule 3 to this Act shall have effect with respect to the licensing of sex establishments..

Nicholas Winterton: With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment 63, in schedule 3, page 122, line 3, leave out paragraphs 1 and 2.

Roberta Blackman-Woods: I shall be brief because we have already touched on the nature of the amendments. They deal with the second loophole and how community empowerment is overlooked under the clause. As drafted, it is enabling legislation, as a result of which local authorities may not necessarily take it up so the community served by such local authorities might not have a greater say in whether there is a lap-dancing club in their area. Will the Minister consider whether the Bill should be universal and require local authorities to enact the provisions locally? If that does not happen, there will be an uneven licensing landscape and those local authorities that do not take up the clause might find that many lap-dancing clubs set themselves up in their area, which could be detrimental to their local communities.
I do not need to labour the point. The Fawcett Society and others, such as my hon. Friend the Member for Stourbridge, who support the Bill, really want the clause to be strengthened. We want more control and regulation of lap-dancing clubs and a greater role for the community so that all communities have an opportunity to make their voices heard.

Evan Harris: I am grateful to you, Sir Nicholas, for calling me before the Conservative party spokesmanperforce, I think.

Nicholas Winterton: He was not here, and you were.

Evan Harris: I was not suggesting that you recognised where the real opposition lay, Sir Nicholas.
Moving swiftly on, I want to express my support for the amendment for the reasons that applied previously. If it is appropriate for local communities through their elected representatives to have the decision-making power in such matters, all local authorities should have it.
My only question relates to the basis on which local authorities would make the decision under the clause. It is a stand part-type question, but I do not think that we will necessarily need a clause stand part debate. Is it the Ministers intention that councils can make moral judgments about the provision of lap-dancing establishments? If that is the case, I have a particular worry. Lap dancing is sex encounter entertainment and it is for adults, and local authorities should have greater power than they have under current arrangements to decide how many such establishmentsif at allthey want in their area, based on the usual requirements that they have to take into account.
According to the Library notes, there is a question about whether the authority can directly evoke moral reasons for not permitting the operation of a lawful business that is offering a lawful activity, even though it is one that has some sexist implications, if there is no valid reason other than its moral objection. It concerns whether the clause will allow an authority to do that. I quote from the comments of a textbook cited in the Library briefing:
while the authority is not itself to make moral judgments, it may react to local sensibilities, which in truth may well be based precisely on moral condemnation of the activity in question.
Clearly, a line has to be drawn between what is a genuine public concern and what is the moral position of individual councillors.
Part of the problem is set out in the note from Object. A number of other organisations have an a priori objection to any lap dancing, on the basis that it is demeaning to women and, therefore, should be prevented from occurring. As I said earlier, I have a great deal of concern about how the lap-dancing industry and the lads mags portray women, but my personal disapproval is not a basis upon which to ban the so-called responsible approach to this activity taking place, with appropriate health and safety, and in appropriate places. Does the Minister envisage a council being able to say, for moral reasons, We shall not allow any lap-dancing clubs in our area under the powers that we have been given under this provision? Or is it the Ministers view that councils would need to have specified reasons, such as where establishments are sitedaround educational establishments, leisure facilities frequented by children or families, near shops used by families, in or near a residential arearather than simply an a priori moral objection?
With that caveat, we support the Governments decision to change the law in this area, but I would be grateful for clarification on that point.

Alan Campbell: Amendments 62 and 63 seek to make the licensing arrangements established by schedule 3 of the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1982 and our amendments to that regime mandatory for all local authorities, whereas we are seeking to maintain the current position, whereby the adoption of the licensing regime provided by the Act is optional. I hope to reassure my hon. Friend the Member for City of Durham that the Governments approach is appropriate, by suggesting some of the difficulties of going down the mandatory route.
First, when the proposals were brought forwardnot least in response to the excellent efforts of my hon. Friendsthey were not without strong support from local authorities and communities. The idea that there would be a struggle in local authority areas to have the provisions adopted will not prove to be the case. The communities that have felt that they lacked this power in the past will find that, under the legislation, they are empowered, and so too will other communities, which may not have a lap-dancing establishment but where there may be plans for a lap-dancing establishment. So, there is strong support, and I do not think that that would lead to a situation in which one could imagine any difficulty in the provisions being taken up.
Not for the first time, I was a little perplexed by the hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon who said, on the one hand, that local authorities should be able to decidehe and I share a lot of common ground, as does the hon. Member for Hornchurch, about localism, local empowerment and the role of local authoritiesbut went on to say that the way we ensure that the localism takes place is that, somehow, we force them to take on the powers with a mandatory regime, irrespective of whether there are clubs or plans in their areas. I do not think that that argument necessarily stacks up.
I shall deal with the point about morality now. In effect, local authorities that adopt the provisions will have to decide how many establishments in their area may be appropriate and will have to take into account the views of local residents. That is the whole point of the legislation, to empower local communities by giving them a power to object that they do not have now. They may take into account all relevant considerations. I would imagine, from my experiencenot with lap-dancing clubs, but with clubs that have applied for temporary event notices, involving strippers and the likethat people would bring various reasons for objecting to establishments if they are proposed. Some of them will undoubtedly be on the basis of their moral objection to what is happening. That would not be universal, but it would be a strand of many residents objections. They do not want these establishments in their areas, but others will object on all sorts of other grounds, such as the kinds of people that might be attracted to the establishments, car parking problems and the other issues that are particular to licensed premises, but also common to planning matters in general. There will have to be a good reason why a local authority takes the objections into consideration, but, on the evidence of existing cases and other planning and licensing matters, I do not think that that will prove too difficult.
I want to address some of the other issues that going down the mandatory route might raise. It would mean that local authorities that do not have sex establishments in their areas would have to implement this licensing regime with no means of recovering the associated administrative costs, which we would normally expect to be recovered through licence fees, but if there are no or a limited number of lap-dancing clubs, a councils ability to impose fees and thereby reclaim the cost of the new licensing arrangements will be minimal.

Roberta Blackman-Woods: What does the Minister mean by costs? I thought that we were talking about a resolution being passed at a council meeting to take the legislation on board, and there may be a minor cost in paper, but it would not be substantial.

Alan Campbell: Having never served on a local authority this may be a million miles from the truth but my understanding is that it could, of course, be a matter of the council adopting a motion, but then a licensing regime is in place. Someone would have to issue the licences, presumably the licences would have to be checked up on, the establishments would have to come back year on year to review their licences and that would all cost time and, therefore, money. Those costs would be recouped through a licensing arrangement, so the establishments would have to be charged. I am not saying that that is an insurmountable reason for not going down the route that my hon. Friend is suggesting, but it is something that should be borne in mind.

Roberta Blackman-Woods: If clubs come forward wanting a licence and the authority has not adopted the new legislation, the clubs will have to do so under the Licensing Act 2003. The local authority still has to have a licensing regime, so there will still be associated costs. I cannot see how there would be substantial additional costs from adopting the amendments.

Alan Campbell: Of course, there are costs with the licensing regime as it stands, and those costs are similarly recouped. However, we are talking not about going down the licensing route using the Licensing Act 2003, but about using a local government provision, which is a different licensing mechanism. If she will bear with me, I will explain why the costs are not simply associated with lap-dancing clubs.
We do not want to impose unnecessary burdens on local authorities. It would be contrary to what we are trying to achieve in changing the licensing arrangements, which is to empower communities and give them a greater influence over the number and location of lap-dancing clubs in their areas. By keeping the adoption of these arrangements optional, local authorities will be able to respond quickly and appropriately to the concerns of their local communities.
The concern has been raised that where one authority takes on the provisions and lap-dancing establishments feel the heat, they may go to a local authority that has not taken on the provisions, but the second local authority can do so very quickly, and within a very short time the lap-dancing establishment will be subject to the same licensing arrangements that would have pertained had it stayed in the first authority. Therefore, where it is appropriate to apply the measure is important. As I said before, we received strong messages from many local authorities on the pressing need for the powers, but others may not feel the need for them. They may believe that the powers are not necessary to deal with the regulation of sex establishments in their areas. If the position changes, and a community hitherto untroubled by lap dancing clubs becomes concerned about the problem, the council will be able to respond by resolving to adopt the 1982 licensing regime.

Lynda Waltho: I believe that a consultation was held during the summer, and that contact was made with local authorities. What was the result? I understand that the overwhelming result was that local authorities wanted that ability. Are there statistics to say otherwise?

Alan Campbell: My recollection is that there was a strong response, and that there was overwhelming support for what we are doing. That supports my hon. Friends case. However, the response was not universal, because the problem is not perceived to be universal. If we were to make the provisions mandatory, they would affect all local authorities; that is precisely what we would be saying.
Although my hon. Friend prays in aid the strong support of local authorities for this measureit proves the case that I am trying to makeit will not be difficult for them to adopt the measure; nor will it be difficult to convince them of the need to adopt it. They are keen to have the legislation, but we are debating whether to make the remaining authorities subject to the provisions. For reasons that I have given and hope to give, we believe that it is a proportionate response to give those powers to local authorities when they want to use them. There is no shortage of demand for them, but it is not universal.
I wish to explain to my hon. Friend the Member for City of Durham another of the amendments effects. It would affect not only lap-dancing clubs but it would have implications for the regulation of sex shops and sex cinemas in those local authority areas where schedule 3 is not adopted under the regime of the 1982 Act. We could find ourselves telling local authorities that they had to adopt the provisions, but if there were no lap-dancing clubs in the area there could be associated costs for sex clubs and sex shops.
I do not know my hon. Friends opinion, as we have not discussed the matter, but she may say, So what? That is exactly the sort of establishment that we would want to be caught. However, she should not underestimate the cost of doing what she suggests. Should a local authority bring forward proposals to take up these provisions, I would be delighted. However, it can do so only on the basis that it will be responding to the needs of the local community, which it undoubtedly will be, and that it can recover the costs.
I also point out to my hon. Friend that there has been no consultation with local authorities or with the Local Government Association on whether the arrangements should apply on a mandatory basis to the licensing of other establishments such as sex cinemas, and what the impact on local authorities of such a change would be. Imposing the new arrangements without such a consultation would be contrary to our approach, which is to try to respond to the needs of local communities. I acknowledge my hon. Friends concerns, but I assure her that by maintaining the optional nature of the licensing arrangements we will not deny local people a say on the establishment of lap- dancing clubsquite the opposite. It is entirely consistent with our aim of giving more influence to local people over these important decisions and empowering local communities that feel unempowered. However, that falls short of saying that it ought to be mandatory and that we should force local authorities to go down that route.

Roberta Blackman-Woods: The Minister is generous in allowing me to intervene. I seek clarification, as I understand that the provisions of the Licensing Act 2003 are mandatory and apply to all local authorities, as do the provisions of the 1982 Act that deal with local authorities that are faced with a licensing application from a sex shop or sex cinema. A mandatory licensing regime is already in place. All we are asking is that lap-dancing clubs are added to what are already mandatory provisions everywhere else with regard to licensing. To apply them to lap-dancing clubs is very straightforward. There should not be substantial additional costs. I would be grateful if the Minister would give the Committee his opinion on that.

Alan Campbell: I will go away and look at this issue but I am advised that it is not mandatory to do so in the way that my hon. Friend says, and that local authorities can adopt these provisions or choose not to do so. We are talking about situations where they have not adopted them, but would do so on the basis of the power we are providing. We do not agree on this, so let me give a commitment to go away and look at this point because there is a clear difference of opinion. I will come back to my hon. Friend and other Members of the Committee.
I am not dismissing the validity of my hon. Friends arguments or her concern. This is an important piece of legislation and we have moved forward on a clearly understood basis. There are principles that apply to get that community empowerment. We want to empower local people, but we want local authorities to have that choice so that local people can hold them accountable for whether or not they adopt these measures. On that basis, I think that what we have introduced is appropriate, but I will look again at the points she makes to see if we can make the provision even more watertight. I have to say that at this point we are not convinced that this needs to be mandatory. On that basis, I hope that I have at least satisfied her and that she will withdraw the amendment even if she returns to the issue at a later date.

Roberta Blackman-Woods: I have heard what the Minister has to say. There are some matters that require clarification. At the moment I am not totally convinced by the arguments about localism, as the Minister appears to be arguing that localism can win out as long as it is the localism of the local authority rather than the localism of the local communities that might be served by the authority. That matter needs to be addressed.

Alan Campbell: I do not want anyone either to read the account, or listen to that explanation and believe that it was a fair representation of my position. On the contrary: I am not saying this is entirely a matter for local authorities. My sincere view over a long period of time is that local authorities need to be even more responsive to local communities than they are. I am certainly not in favour of a top-down approach in any shape or form. The purpose of the legislation is to empower communities from the bottom and that is what we intend to do.

Roberta Blackman-Woods: I thank the Minister for his helpful explanation. We need more clarification, and I hope the Minister will take this away and that his team will look at it closely and do everything it can to close down this second loophole. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 25 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedule 3 agreed to.

Clause 26

Increase in penalty for offence

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

James Brokenshire: In introducing clause 26, which relates to the increase in penalties for the offence of consuming alcohol in a designated public place from level 2 to level 4, it is important to look at the context to understand why the Government believe that further changes to the law are needed, both in the clause and more generally in relation to the provisions that we will be debating in this part of the Bill. There are obvious and clear links between alcohol and violent crime. In their document, Safe. Sensible. Social. The next steps in the National Alcohol Strategy, the Government pointed that out quite clearly:
Alcohol consumption is most likely to be associated with violence committed by strangers and with incidents which result in wounding.
As part of its proposals to address these problems of violence linked to binge drinking and criminality, the Licensing Act 2003 was passed, promising to realise the concept of a cafÃ(c) culture and a reduction in the problem of alcohol-fuelled crime. However, on the basis of the Governments own assessment, the effect has been neutral as far as the evaluation of the impact of the Licensing Act is concerned:
The impact on overall crime levels appears to be limited, with evidence of some displacement into the small hours.
Arguably, the Governments proposals under the Licensing Act have made the situation worse, with the displacement of this problem of violent crime to the early hours of the morning, with hospital accident and emergency departments having to pick up the problem. I presume that that is partly why the Government feel they need to introduce clause 26 to address the problem of binge drinking. It is clear is that alcohol admissions to hospital casualty departments have jumped by a quarter since the introduction of the Licensing Act, with real costs being involved. Equally, there are increased pressures on the police in the early hours of the morning.
Young people who are consuming alcohol are consuming much more, feeding into the culture of binge drinking, alcohol-fuelled crime, and long-term health damage. In Safe. Sensible. Social. the Government highlighted that:
The UK has among the highest incidences of youth drunkenness. Among 35 European countries, the UK has the third highest proportion of 15-year-olds (24 per cent.) who have been drunk 10 times or more over the past year, based on self-reported data.
We need to be mindful of the fact that death rates from alcohol-related illnesses continue to rise. Moreover, in terms of the impact on the public and on our communities, the Government themselves appear to accept that 61 per cent. of the public think that alcohol-related crime on the streets is increasing.
I certainly welcome measures that will be effective in combating the problems that have been created and that we see in our communities as a consequence of alcohol-fuelled disorder and crime. My question in relation to clause 26 is what impact the measures will have and whether they may in fact undermine or hamper existing good practice and partnership working to combat underage sales and drink-fuelled crime. Clause 26 increases the penalty for consuming alcohol in a designated public place from £500 to £2,500. However, as was highlighted on Second Reading, no one has received the maximum fine to date, so in a sense this is window dressing rather than an effective way of combating those offences. That view is reaffirmed when one considers that in 2007, the number of people charged under section 12(4) of the Criminal Justice and Police Act 2001 was 113, of whom 98 were found guilty. The most relevant fact in relation to the clause is that the number of people who received a fine at level 2over £200 and up to £500was five.
Given that no one received the maximum fine even under the existing level 2, and with only five people in 2007 receiving a level 2 fine, will the Minister explain how the provision will make an impact and how it will deliver the messages that were referred to, and which the Government often rely on to support their introduction of the measures, and to try to show that they are being tough? The reality appears to be that no one is receiving the maximum fine under the existing arrangements, and that very few people are receiving a fine anywhere near the previous maximum. That raises the question of what impact the change will have.
Another question is how the proposal fits into the Governments drive towards summary justice. According to the Home Office, more than 1,500 people received an £80 fixed penalty ticket for the offence, Presumably, notwithstanding the change that the Government propose in clause 26, many people will still receive penalty notices for disorder offences. Again, what difference will the clause make if the majority of people will simply be dealt with by way of a fixed penalty ticket?
When the Home Secretary talks about sending out messages, is she saying through this increase in the fine that she wants more people to be taken to court rather than dealt with summarily? Is that the indicator? Is that the message that she and the Ministers are trying to communicate through the change proposed in clause 26? They are sending out a message to the public on the seriousness of the offence, but how will it be sent to the police? That may not be the intentionif it is not that, too, raises a question about the purpose of the provision. If, as we have been told, the clause is about communicating the message to the public that the intention is to deal with the offence more seriously, will the Minister explain what public relations campaign will be initiated to launch that message?
The focus of the Governments proposals is youth drinking. The measures before us appear to implement several previous statements such as the one in the youth alcohol action plan. In that context, it might be helpful to understand how many of the five people in 2007we could use any other figures the Minister may be able to providewho were under the age of 18 were convicted of an offence under section 12(4) of the Criminal Justice Act 2001. We also need to understand better how the proposal in clause 26 has been arrived at. Can the Minister confirm whether the additional power was actively sought by the police or the magistrates courts in advance? Can he confirm what assessment was undertaken of the operation of section 12(4) in its previous form, and whether the results of that investigation provided evidence to support the Governments proposal?
It is important that we consider what changes may be brought about as a consequence of the measure. In its briefing note on this part of the Bill, the Young Womens Christian Association stated:
Increasing the fine to such a level is unlikely to help any of these people who are likely to be unable to pay the fine. An offer of support to combat alcohol problems would be a more effective lever for behaviour change.
What potential do other interventions have to stop reoffending? Does the Minister support other innovative interventions such as the programme adopted by Hertfordshire police for drink offences more generally? It provides an alternative to a penalty notice for disorder, and gives people the option of accepting a reduced fixed penalty of £40, which is then used to pay for an alcohol treatment programmea project that the person attends on a Saturday morning. It gets them to face up to the consequences of binge drinking and to focus on the consumption of alcohol units. The punishment is the payment of the £40 plus attendance on the course.
I had the pleasure of being invited to observe how the programme worked in practice. It was interesting to see that several people actually went away questioning their behaviour. They were challenged to behave in a more appropriate way in the future.
Yes, we seek to punish, but we also want to stop further offending and to get people to consider whether their consumption of alcohol is appropriate. They need to understand units and how much alcohol they are consuming, and to recognise that, in extreme cases, alcohol consumption can link to violence and unacceptable behaviour in our communities.
Hertfordshire uses the drink awareness programme as a variation on penalty notices for disorder, and from the initial studies, it seems to be effective. Clearly, however, other programmes and projects could be used as an alternative to challenge behaviour and focus on its causes. Again, although I recognise that the Government appear to be sending out a strong messageI do not demur from being firm on such offencesthere is still a question of what is effective and makes a difference in such situations.

Simon Burns: My hon. Friend is probably not aware that on the Saturday before last, I was up until 4 in the morning with street pastors in the centre of Chelmsford. Does he accept that there is an element of carrot and stick to the problem? The street pastors have a tremendous role to play in helping and comforting young people who often over-indulge and get into trouble, or cause problems for the local community.

James Brokenshire: My hon. Friend effectively highlights the work of street pastors, which is well received and effective in a number of the communities in which they operate. I am pleased to hear that street pastors are being positive and useful in engaging young people in his constituency

Simon Burns: And in Romford.
James BrokenshireAnd in my borough, too. The street pastors look at behaviours in the late-night economy, talk to people and engage positively. However, I am sure that my hon. Friend will recognise that there is a need for criminal justice interventions to send a strong message when people transgress and behave inappropriately.
I understand why the Government, through section 12 of the 2001 Act, have created the offence of consuming alcohol in a designated public place. It can be an effective tool in the box. I accept entirely that we do not necessarily want people wandering the streets with alcohol. I fasten on to the point that this is a question of ensuring that the changes that we make are effective and are used. We need to ensure that proposals are effective, and that is why I say again that the power has not been used to its fullest extent, which raises the question of what difference will be made by increasing the fine.
Equally, as I understand itI am sure that the Minister can provide some detail about how the court sets finesaffordability must be considered. How many people would be captured by that increase in the quantum? How will sending out that message affect the anticipated number of people receiving, for example, a sentence in excess of existing limits? Understanding that better, and understanding the Governments approach, will be of great assistance to the Committee in appreciating the rationale and purpose behind the change and why it is envisaged that it will be effective.
It is important, in that context, to consider that paragraph 24 of the British Retail Consortiums briefing notes to the Committee states:
Clause 26 increases the maximum fine for consuming alcohol in a designated public place from level two (currently £500) to level four (currently £2,500). However, no person since 2004 has been given a fine of more than £250 meaning that the current £500 maximum fine has never been used. We do not therefore understand the logic of altering this at this time.
I hope that the Minister will explain the logic. Is it simply about sending a message, or is there a more substantive rationale? I am not in any way opposed to tough sentencing and a firm approach, but as the power has not been used, I want to understand whether he believes that the proposal will make a noticeable difference in the fight against alcohol-fuelled disorder.

Paul Holmes: I have asked this question in Committee before: what is the point of increasing a maximum fine from £500, although it has never been used at that level, to £2,500 when, presumably, that is even less likely to be used? The Minister replied that it would send a message. Sending a message to the Daily Mail might achieve one purpose, but it will have no effect on the problem on the street that we are talking about. In reality, would a group of 14, 15 or 16-year-olds who are going to go and drink in a public place really sit down and think that they had better not do so because the maximum fine has increased to £2,500? That is simply not part of their calculation of what they are doing. Similarly, someone with an alcohol problem who is sitting in Chesterfield town centre, where the council has designated a spot in the marketplace area, will not rationally sit down and think about the maximum fine. If £500 never deterred them, neither will £2,500.
The National Association of Probation Officers has made the point that most of the drinkers who ever arrive in probation officers hands are people with multiple social and personal problems who struggle to pay fines a great deal lower than £2,500. The association specifically says that the fivefold increase in the fine, if it was actually used, would be unrealistic and would probably result in jailing more people by default, which is probably not the intention behind the proposal. The people on whom the fine is levied could be incapable of paying it, whatever their life circumstances. An unforeseen consequence of the measure could therefore be more people going to jail for non-payment of a huge fine, if it were ever levied. What is the point of increasing a maximum fine that has never been used to a level at which it will never be used, given that even if it were used, it would end up sending people to jail rather getting them into help programmes that they need?

Alan Campbell: This is not an either/or situation in which there is a question of whether or not we get people into the kind of support that they need to get out of their problem, and whether or not we enforce the fine. We need to put a comprehensive alcohol strategy in place, and the measure is an important part of it.
Let me set out the reasons why we are bringing forward the proposals. First, although I do not think that hon. Members have focused on this in the debate, the proposal sends the clear and strong message that someone will be subject to a greater fine because they have failed to comply with the police in a DPPO, which is unacceptable. This is not about whether a person has drink, but whether they comply with what a police officer says. The hon. Member for Hornchurch used the phrase window dressing, but it is not window dressing to introduce measures to ensure that people respect police officers who are going about their business.
On the second point that hon. Members picked up, the measure will, in our view, strengthen the deterrent. I shall come back to why we need to send out the strong message, but the third reason behind the measure is that it will bring the maximum penalty in line with other similar offences, notably failure to comply with directions to leave.
On the deterrent effect, the vast majority of breaches of DPPOs mean that a person will receive a penalty notice rather than be prosecuted. We believe that raising the fine will provide an incentive to the police and Crown Prosecution Service to pursue a prosecution in more cases than at present. We also believe that it will send out a clearer signal that alcohol-related disorder will not be tolerated. We have said for many years, and on many occasions, that it will not be tolerated, and we have acted. We are seeking to ratchet up that response to send out a stronger message, for the reason that I will come back to in a moment.
The hon. Gentleman mentioned the YWCA, which talked about the fundamental issue of why people drink. We have 13 pilots for alcohol referral orders, some of which we announced before Christmas. They are designed to stop people from going straight into the criminal justice system by getting support for them in place. I do not recallI will go back and check the media commentsstrong support for that measure from Opposition Members when it was announced, and it certainly did not win us universal plaudits in the tabloid newspapers. However, I believe that it is an important step in the right direction. This is not an either/or measure; rather, it complements what we are trying to do.
We have a comprehensive alcohol education programme. Of course we need to do more, but there is support through measures in schools and things like making people aware of the health message and of how many units it is safe to consume. We also want to send out a stronger message. The hon. Member for West Chelmsford mentioned street pastors. They do a fantastic job and make up an important piece of the jigsaw, but they are not the whole messageI know that he did not suggest that they were. We need an enforcement strategy and that is what this is about.
The hon. Member for Hornchurch mentioned the police. During one of our evidence sessions, I remember asking the ACPO lead the polices view about a basket of measures, of which this is one. Unless my memory is failing me, I think that he said that ACPO welcomed the measures. It welcomes them because what we are introducing is based on police officers experiences and on police officers saying, Yes, we do want to see these measures being used, but lets tell you how they are working in practice. It is not always possible to get legislation absolutely right the first time. Sometimes legislation has to be adjusted to changing circumstances.
I will tell hon. Members what those changing circumstances are. The time is right for us to take a more focused approach that reflects on not the failure, but the success of measures that we have introduced. That means that we can target individuals, whether they are individual establishments that sell drink to under-age drinkers, rowdy pubs that fuel disorder, or the small minority of young people who get involved in acts of wanton vandalism and violence because they are fuelled up with alcohol. That was certainly part of the discussion that I had with the ACPO lead on these matters, although he is not here to contradict me.

James Brokenshire: I am grateful to the Minister. As we consider this part of the Bill, we can certainly debate at length some of his points about apparent effectiveness. A lot of people would, I think, question the effectiveness of some of the measures. However, he saidI agreethat the ACPO lead said that he welcomed the measures during our evidence session. Did the police ask for the powers in advance of them being drafted? If the Minister is saying that one of the reasons why the measure is being introduced is to get more cases to court, was the message from the police, We need this increase in the fine to help us to persuade the Crown Prosecution Service to take more cases to court?

Alan Campbell: As one would expect, we work closely with the police on these matters. We can pass as many laws as we want, but they will have effect with regard to what we are talking about only if the police make them work. The message coming back from the police is, We are grateful for the powers that we have. When we use them they make a difference in communities, but we want to ensure that we have the proper tools to go even further. The hon. Gentleman asked when we consulted the police. We talk to the police all the time about such matters and ensure that we introduce legislation that has their support. We are grateful for their support for the Bill. On that basis, I hope that we can support the clause.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 26 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Ordered, That further consideration be now adjourned.(Mr. Ian Austin.)

Adjourned till Thursday 12 February at Nine oclock.